get out of here bg. You want your cake and to eat it too. You and your alliance are confident you can run both masters (even without an a team 1 or 2 wars a week ) and 7x5 but don’t want to pay the premium.
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.
You arnt penalized but you are handicapped. It’s not the same either. It forces alliances to make a choice.
Kabam is indirectly spreading the best rewards to a larger population by taking this stance. They are dictating account growth at the top and trying to even the playing field some rather than the same 20 alliances receiving the best rewards week after week month after month.
I honestly don't get the point of any map having any cost. All it does it make the game less fun. You have to grind for things just to play AQ, or spend ridiculous sums, or pay for black market donations. Why?
It would be more fun if donations were not part of the equation at all. Let gold be for rank ups, chips for arena crystals, and loyalty for the Loyalty Store. Let difficulty be the gate for what map an alliance runs in AQ and nothing else. This is supposed to be contest after all, and contests are best when skill determines outcomes instead of all these other issues determining them.
Really trying to burn out officers these days. Can't wait for those nodes to make it to AW.
I don't want to undersell this... If you think that co-ordinating running this Map is going to be too hard or too much work, this Map is not going to be for you. Even if you can handle the fights, a large amount of co-ordination and self sufficiency is going to be needed to complete Map 7.
I'm not trying to be mean... I want to be very realistic with you guys.
How about being realistic with the Loyalty ingame being unexistant and having to cope with it and shut up?
Check BG video, maybe you can get a hint. If BG himself ends up being disappointed, you should have a million alarm bells ringing at HQ right now.
You even addressed the practice to buy donations from "black market", and at today you're still oblivious that without said practice NONE would literally have ran map 6 for the last couple years, nor anyone would even think about map 7.
Sometimes it's scary how incredibly disappointing about knowing your own game you guys can be.
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.
if only you didnt need loyalty for boosts in seasons.
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.
if only you didnt need loyalty for boosts in seasons.
You do not.
Furthermore thanks for engaging me. More and more this is looking like the top feeling threatened about the possiblity they will might not be able to push both AW and AQ to maintain the status quo.
The argument that alliances wouldn’t be running map 6 absent “alternative” sources of donations is false, a truer statement would be less alliances would be running 6x5 without those donations but many alliances would still be running as much map as they could muster without living in game. I’m guessing that false belief supports your postion/goals so you’ve decided it must be true.
BG isn’t the best example as his ability to pay for 7x5 is only hampered by past choices he’s made with his resources. Which BTW were partiallly gathered by trading BC for loyalty which is something that is now a problem? It’s further evidence of most of this being a reaction to the threat of the status quo being upset. It was fine for a 5* UC but today it’s too much to maintain his spot near the top.l?!? Don’t get me wrong I BG but can’t let this argument continue unchallenged.
I think Kabam pretty much nailed this one. Everyone gets more resources and the top is challenged to make a choice of maintaining either or which allows others to advance.
It’s breaking down into a Henny Penny situation which isn’t going to reinforce the position you hold. And we haven’t even played the damn map yet....
@Kabam DK One of the concerns during Map 7 Beta testing was the Omega Miniboss having a three-minute timer. Has Kabam decided to implement three-minute timers for all Map 7 nodes?
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.
How bout looking at normal aq and aw fights increased to 4 or 5 mins???
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.
if only you didnt need loyalty for boosts in seasons.
You do not.
Furthermore thanks for engaging me. More and more this is looking like the top feeling threatened about the possiblity they will might not be able to push both AW and AQ to maintain the status quo.
The argument that alliances wouldn’t be running map 6 absent “alternative” sources of donations is false, a truer statement would be less alliances would be running 6x5 without those donations but many alliances would still be running as much map as they could muster without living in game. I’m guessing that false belief supports your postion/goals so you’ve decided it must be true.
BG isn’t the best example as his ability to pay for 7x5 is only hampered by past choices he’s made with his resources. Which BTW were partiallly gathered by trading BC for loyalty which is something that is now a problem? It’s further evidence of most of this being a reaction to the threat of the status quo being upset. It was fine for a 5* UC but today it’s too much to maintain his spot near the top.l?!? Don’t get me wrong I BG but can’t let this argument continue unchallenged.
I think Kabam pretty much nailed this one. Everyone gets more resources and the top is challenged to make a choice of maintaining either or which allows others to advance.
It’s breaking down into a Henny Penny situation which isn’t going to reinforce the position you hold. And we haven’t even played the damn map yet....
We've already talked a bunch, and already stated our opinions on it, so I won't go into much detail again, but I just want to clarify that my belief that the donation costs are too high has nothing to do with where I think I would rank. For one, I don't care about the rankings nearly enough. I've already said in the past plenty of times how I'd be fine going down out of masters or dropping out of top 10 in AQ. I'm alright with not getting the best rewards. Hell, half the stuff I get just sits in unopened crystals as it is anyway. And second, its not like the costs are exclusively high for me or something. Everyone has the same costs. I don't see the rankings changing much. Slight shifts here and there maybe, but what do I care whether we are top 10 or top 20? I talk from my own experience more of as an example and comparison to others. My feedback isn't at all about an alliance's ability to hold a spot at the top. It's just my opinion on what's fun and what's not. My opinion on what should and should not be expected of players. Just my opinion.
Maybe it's my fault for making it sound too much like it's my own personal problem, whereas my goal was just to give feedback on an area of the game I think can be improved. From my perspective, this feedback is no different than feedback about something that isn't competitive at all, like the 25 minute video I posted a few weeks ago about how I'd like to see dungeons changed. I guess I don't usually post on the forums about it, but Kabam can tell you, I give feedback about pretty much everything. Sometimes in videos, sometimes not. Sometimes privately, sometimes not. Whether it gets seen by everyone or not, feedback is almost always given.
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.
if only you didnt need loyalty for boosts in seasons.
You do not.
Furthermore thanks for engaging me. More and more this is looking like the top feeling threatened about the possiblity they will might not be able to push both AW and AQ to maintain the status quo.
The argument that alliances wouldn’t be running map 6 absent “alternative” sources of donations is false, a truer statement would be less alliances would be running 6x5 without those donations but many alliances would still be running as much map as they could muster without living in game. I’m guessing that false belief supports your postion/goals so you’ve decided it must be true.
BG isn’t the best example as his ability to pay for 7x5 is only hampered by past choices he’s made with his resources. Which BTW were partiallly gathered by trading BC for loyalty which is something that is now a problem? It’s further evidence of most of this being a reaction to the threat of the status quo being upset. It was fine for a 5* UC but today it’s too much to maintain his spot near the top.l?!? Don’t get me wrong I BG but can’t let this argument continue unchallenged.
I think Kabam pretty much nailed this one. Everyone gets more resources and the top is challenged to make a choice of maintaining either or which allows others to advance.
It’s breaking down into a Henny Penny situation which isn’t going to reinforce the position you hold. And we haven’t even played the damn map yet....
Finally someone with sense, if you can't do map 7 than just don't, let other do it, bragging about the costs is completely pathetic
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.
if only you didnt need loyalty for boosts in seasons.
You do not.
Furthermore thanks for engaging me. More and more this is looking like the top feeling threatened about the possiblity they will might not be able to push both AW and AQ to maintain the status quo.
The argument that alliances wouldn’t be running map 6 absent “alternative” sources of donations is false, a truer statement would be less alliances would be running 6x5 without those donations but many alliances would still be running as much map as they could muster without living in game. I’m guessing that false belief supports your postion/goals so you’ve decided it must be true.
BG isn’t the best example as his ability to pay for 7x5 is only hampered by past choices he’s made with his resources. Which BTW were partiallly gathered by trading BC for loyalty which is something that is now a problem? It’s further evidence of most of this being a reaction to the threat of the status quo being upset. It was fine for a 5* UC but today it’s too much to maintain his spot near the top.l?!? Don’t get me wrong I BG but can’t let this argument continue unchallenged.
I think Kabam pretty much nailed this one. Everyone gets more resources and the top is challenged to make a choice of maintaining either or which allows others to advance.
It’s breaking down into a Henny Penny situation which isn’t going to reinforce the position you hold. And we haven’t even played the damn map yet....
Dead on. All of the reactions to this started bc they saw one post as a direct threat. Same thing happened when aw piloting came into the realm of public conversation. And the same basic arguments were used then as well.
On one hand, what's the point of map costs anyway? Shouldn't the difficulty of the content be the barrier to the content? You don't need to pay to enter act 5 or LOL, and you get 100% of the gold back from most arenas if you win all 3 matches. If they want to make the rewards cover what you spend then fine, but to award nothing or little of it is just seems like they want people to spend.
On the other hand, the end game should only be for those who are willing and able to dedicate the time and resources to get there. If you can't spend the time or money that others are willing to then why should you expect to get the same rewards?
I'm not sure which is right but I know which one make the game more fun.
So with reducing map 5 BC requirements to 0, does that mean we won’t be getting BC as a Reward for completion of the map? Or is the plan to keep it the same or reduce the number of BC we get for completing it?
So with reducing map 5 BC requirements to 0, does that mean we won’t be getting BC as a Reward for completion of the map? Or is the plan to keep it the same or reduce the number of BC we get for completing it?
You'll still get bc from map 5. For a total net gain.
So with reducing map 5 BC requirements to 0, does that mean we won’t be getting BC as a Reward for completion of the map? Or is the plan to keep it the same or reduce the number of BC we get for completing it?
You'll still get bc from map 5. For a total net gain.
It seems hard to believe that Kabam will give us close to 30k free BC for running 5x5. Pretty sure it’s a trap lol.
The only reason the entire community hasn’t revolted by this piss poor loyalty given in game is because most players got loyalty back from years of things that they messed up back to back, when that loyalty runs out, it will come to a head.
(MD and Class boosts)
No amount of grinding can increase loyalty.. the system they have in place is ****.. no player can run map 7 and do AW . It’s not realistic . Like I said, reason ppl aren’t revolting are because ppl have a stash from the refunds..
Either now or later. This will be a huuuuuge problem.
So with reducing map 5 BC requirements to 0, does that mean we won’t be getting BC as a Reward for completion of the map? Or is the plan to keep it the same or reduce the number of BC we get for completing it?
You'll still get bc from map 5. For a total net gain.
It seems hard to believe that Kabam will give us close to 30k free BC for running 5x5. Pretty sure it’s a trap lol.
I know it seems that way but it's already been confirmed.
im not expecting anything but with the removal of battlechip cost to map 4,5,6, will the players, not the alliance due to players built up the alliance treasury, get something back possibly from battlechips or gold with this reduction cost?
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
so new aq updates will be on 16th with all the new costs etc. so will play with the new update this round and the next round on 24th will just be free? why not make these changes on 24th and play same round free? just dont get it!
The only reason the entire community hasn’t revolted by this piss poor loyalty given in game is because most players got loyalty back from years of things that they messed up back to back, when that loyalty runs out, it will come to a head.
(MD and Class boosts)
No amount of grinding can increase loyalty.. the system they have in place is ****.. no player can run map 7 and do AW . It’s not realistic . Like I said, reason ppl aren’t revolting are because ppl have a stash from the refunds..
Either now or later. This will be a huuuuuge problem.
Then er... don’t buy boosts for AW? Not a big deal. It’s a resource limitation much like players complaining about lack of gold, t4cc, t1a etc
The only reason the entire community hasn’t revolted by this piss poor loyalty given in game is because most players got loyalty back from years of things that they messed up back to back, when that loyalty runs out, it will come to a head.
(MD and Class boosts)
No amount of grinding can increase loyalty.. the system they have in place is ****.. no player can run map 7 and do AW . It’s not realistic . Like I said, reason ppl aren’t revolting are because ppl have a stash from the refunds..
Either now or later. This will be a huuuuuge problem.
The only reason the entire community hasn’t revolted by this piss poor loyalty given in game is because most players got loyalty back from years of things that they messed up back to back, when that loyalty runs out, it will come to a head.
(MD and Class boosts)
No amount of grinding can increase loyalty.. the system they have in place is ****.. no player can run map 7 and do AW . It’s not realistic . Like I said, reason ppl aren’t revolting are because ppl have a stash from the refunds..
Either now or later. This will be a huuuuuge problem.
Kabam want that we spend Loyalty with units
If you want to run 7x5 that’s true. The amount of ally that do that is a really tiny percentage of the overall population.
so new aq updates will be on 16th with all the new costs etc. so will play with the new update this round and the next round on 24th will just be free? why not make these changes on 24th and play same round free? just dont get it!
It's cos they're doing a special event to recognised the best of the best of who can afford want to complete map7. Even playing field with everyone going in blind.
It's cos they're doing a special event to recognised the best of the best of who can afford want to complete map7. Even playing field with everyone going in blind.
I agree with this but question to what extent. If account sharing/piloting does not get players banned next AQ cycle the special titles will be alliance versions of MCOC's legends aka mercenary titles. Kabam would make an immensely positive impression by expanding the range of account sharing TOS violation penalties from only AW to AW & AQ.
On one hand, what's the point of map costs anyway? Shouldn't the difficulty of the content be the barrier to the content?
Why stop there? Why limit players to only running five maps a week? If they are good enough to do it, why not let alliances simply restart the map over and over again as fast as they can as often as they can? Why limit anything with any arbitrary limit other than what they can humanly execute?
All game rules are completely arbitrary, even the ones that people think aren't because they are either "obvious" or "fair." The point of the rules of any game is often not to make things necessarily better for each individual participant, but to make things better for the game as a whole.
There's a short version and an extremely long version. The short version is you soft cap the top because otherwise soon enough there is no middle or bottom, and then the top becomes meaningless, and then there's no game.
Map costs are ultimately not about forcing players to pay, they are about forcing players to make choices. You're supposed to make choices every day in the game surrounding every limited resource. The one thing we all know for sure is that for the players and the alliances at the very top, the one choice they are completely ignoring - which is why they are in fact at the very top - is to pace themselves through the difficulty. So the answer to the question "shouldn't difficulty be the barrier at the top" is: it never is.
Wish you would clear our more empty nodes for at least map6 or just make empty nodes in AQ not cost energy if needed for map design. You did well on AW in limiting energy constraints for most paths and don’t see why a similar approach can’t be done for AQ. Either increase the rate we gain energy or drop the amount of energy needed. Anything more than 15 energy at the 3 + 1 energy per hour seems excessive for people trying to balance life/work and the game. Yes, some jobs do prevent people from playing for 8 hours straight on busy days.
Make encounters challenging, cool. Make people have to donate more, ok - donations can be earned in Windows players have time to play which for some is peaks and valleys. Prevent some people from doing content because they can’t routinely check in while at work doesn’t seem like a good setup. AW gives more flexibility for this and that runs 3/7 days. AQ runs 5/8.
On one hand, what's the point of map costs anyway? Shouldn't the difficulty of the content be the barrier to the content?
Why stop there? Why limit players to only running five maps a week? If they are good enough to do it, why not let alliances simply restart the map over and over again as fast as they can as often as they can? Why limit anything with any arbitrary limit other than what they can humanly execute?
All game rules are completely arbitrary, even the ones that people think aren't because they are either "obvious" or "fair." The point of the rules of any game is often not to make things necessarily better for each individual participant, but to make things better for the game as a whole.
There's a short version and an extremely long version. The short version is you soft cap the top because otherwise soon enough there is no middle or bottom, and then the top becomes meaningless, and then there's no game.
Map costs are ultimately not about forcing players to pay, they are about forcing players to make choices. You're supposed to make choices every day in the game surrounding every limited resource. The one thing we all know for sure is that for the players and the alliances at the very top, the one choice they are completely ignoring - which is why they are in fact at the very top - is to pace themselves through the difficulty. So the answer to the question "shouldn't difficulty be the barrier at the top" is: it never is.
Again hoping this comes out the right way, because I agree with some of your points, but there are also some things I disagree with, so why not keep the conversation going?
About choice - I think it's fair to say map costs force players to make decisions, but I also think it's fair to say that map costs, at a certain point, take away some of that choice and the game kind of makes the decision for the player. So we agree that cost should be there, but disagree on the amount.
About difficulty being the barrier - I think difficulty will be the biggest barrier for map 7 still, whether costs are high or not. People who didn't participate in the beta have no idea what they are in for. I think the success rate for even top 20 alliances will be less than 50% to complete 7x5.
About the top alliances pacing themselves - I think every single alliance outside of the 2-3 alliances competing for rank 1 will be pacing themselves. Partially by choice, and partially because that choice feels like it's not there. My prediction is that outside of the top 2-3 alliances, most top alliances who want to run map 7 will do as much as possible in the first 2 weeks, then shift to an alternating 76767 setup to go with the alliance war placement/attack phases. Or at least as much as their abilities and item stash will allow, so 76766 or 76666. I think this would be a common setup regardless of donation costs, but high costs push players into this setup even further. If it weren't for the high costs, we may see more alliances choosing to fully focus on AQ and put a much lower emphasis on AW. Maybe that's what the devs were going for, limiting player choice in the name of balancing AQ/AW participation. Maybe that's not it and that's just what it feels like.
I could absolutely be wrong about what alliances will do. This is not something that my alliance has decided on yet even. It'll be interesting to see what alliances do after these first 2 weeks, but this is what I believe will happen.
I could absolutely be wrong about what alliances will do.
So could I, but here's the thing. I don't challenge what you think top alliances might do *now* immediately after Map 7 comes out. That's not what the costs are intended to address in the first place. They are intended (this is a bit of a presumption, but a safe one considering the prior discussions about Map 6) to moderate progress, meaning they are intended to impact what top alliances do in the future, over substantial periods of time.
The problem is that it is easy to make things cheaper, and really hard to make things more expensive. There's no intrinsic problem with the map costs being too high, because that's a self-regulating problem (i.e. people won't pay it). If the costs are so high that alliances simply cannot progress upward to more Map 7 runs, Kabam can reduce those costs in the future (as they have for lower maps). But if they set them too low, and top alliances immediately shoot for running 7x5 and get there quickly, you've practically blown it for Map 7 and have to wait for Map 8 to try again.
In fact, what if this is the try-again? Kabam stated that they wanted the costs of Map 6 to slow alliances down, and not try to just run 6x5 all the time. But they relatively quickly did. What if that happened way faster than Kabam intended, and so they are cranking the costs of Map 7 way up to prevent that from happening a second time? It actually seems reasonable, because my recollection is everyone was complaining about Map 6 costs, and then very quickly everyone stopped complaining, and the next thing I knew 6x5 was an actual thing in rapid succession.
Let's say there's a 90% chance you're right, and only a 10% chance you're wrong. *But* the problems associated with increasing the costs of the map if you're wrong are very high (not in terms of development time, but in terms of players complaining about the costs going up). Doesn't that change the nature of the choice in what to price the map?
Some things you need to get right the first time. But progress gates aren't one of them. Most of the progress gates in the game aren't even visible, and have no impact on the game. We don't have T5CC, we don't have 7* champs, we don't have Map 8, we don't have Act 15. If Map 7s costs are too high, that has a comparable impact on the game as if Map 7 didn't exist at all. Under those circumstances, setting the costs high with the option to lower then later seems to be safer.
Comments
You arnt penalized but you are handicapped. It’s not the same either. It forces alliances to make a choice.
Kabam is indirectly spreading the best rewards to a larger population by taking this stance. They are dictating account growth at the top and trying to even the playing field some rather than the same 20 alliances receiving the best rewards week after week month after month.
It would be more fun if donations were not part of the equation at all. Let gold be for rank ups, chips for arena crystals, and loyalty for the Loyalty Store. Let difficulty be the gate for what map an alliance runs in AQ and nothing else. This is supposed to be contest after all, and contests are best when skill determines outcomes instead of all these other issues determining them.
How about being realistic with the Loyalty ingame being unexistant and having to cope with it and shut up?
Check BG video, maybe you can get a hint. If BG himself ends up being disappointed, you should have a million alarm bells ringing at HQ right now.
You even addressed the practice to buy donations from "black market", and at today you're still oblivious that without said practice NONE would literally have ran map 6 for the last couple years, nor anyone would even think about map 7.
Sometimes it's scary how incredibly disappointing about knowing your own game you guys can be.
% drop rates please.
if only you didnt need loyalty for boosts in seasons.
Furthermore thanks for engaging me. More and more this is looking like the top feeling threatened about the possiblity they will might not be able to push both AW and AQ to maintain the status quo.
The argument that alliances wouldn’t be running map 6 absent “alternative” sources of donations is false, a truer statement would be less alliances would be running 6x5 without those donations but many alliances would still be running as much map as they could muster without living in game. I’m guessing that false belief supports your postion/goals so you’ve decided it must be true.
BG isn’t the best example as his ability to pay for 7x5 is only hampered by past choices he’s made with his resources. Which BTW were partiallly gathered by trading BC for loyalty which is something that is now a problem? It’s further evidence of most of this being a reaction to the threat of the status quo being upset. It was fine for a 5* UC but today it’s too much to maintain his spot near the top.l?!? Don’t get me wrong I
I think Kabam pretty much nailed this one. Everyone gets more resources and the top is challenged to make a choice of maintaining either or which allows others to advance.
It’s breaking down into a Henny Penny situation which isn’t going to reinforce the position you hold. And we haven’t even played the damn map yet....
How bout looking at normal aq and aw fights increased to 4 or 5 mins???
We've already talked a bunch, and already stated our opinions on it, so I won't go into much detail again, but I just want to clarify that my belief that the donation costs are too high has nothing to do with where I think I would rank. For one, I don't care about the rankings nearly enough. I've already said in the past plenty of times how I'd be fine going down out of masters or dropping out of top 10 in AQ. I'm alright with not getting the best rewards. Hell, half the stuff I get just sits in unopened crystals as it is anyway. And second, its not like the costs are exclusively high for me or something. Everyone has the same costs. I don't see the rankings changing much. Slight shifts here and there maybe, but what do I care whether we are top 10 or top 20? I talk from my own experience more of as an example and comparison to others. My feedback isn't at all about an alliance's ability to hold a spot at the top. It's just my opinion on what's fun and what's not. My opinion on what should and should not be expected of players. Just my opinion.
Maybe it's my fault for making it sound too much like it's my own personal problem, whereas my goal was just to give feedback on an area of the game I think can be improved. From my perspective, this feedback is no different than feedback about something that isn't competitive at all, like the 25 minute video I posted a few weeks ago about how I'd like to see dungeons changed. I guess I don't usually post on the forums about it, but Kabam can tell you, I give feedback about pretty much everything. Sometimes in videos, sometimes not. Sometimes privately, sometimes not. Whether it gets seen by everyone or not, feedback is almost always given.
Finally someone with sense, if you can't do map 7 than just don't, let other do it, bragging about the costs is completely pathetic
Dead on. All of the reactions to this started bc they saw one post as a direct threat. Same thing happened when aw piloting came into the realm of public conversation. And the same basic arguments were used then as well.
On one hand, what's the point of map costs anyway? Shouldn't the difficulty of the content be the barrier to the content? You don't need to pay to enter act 5 or LOL, and you get 100% of the gold back from most arenas if you win all 3 matches. If they want to make the rewards cover what you spend then fine, but to award nothing or little of it is just seems like they want people to spend.
On the other hand, the end game should only be for those who are willing and able to dedicate the time and resources to get there. If you can't spend the time or money that others are willing to then why should you expect to get the same rewards?
I'm not sure which is right but I know which one make the game more fun.
You'll still get bc from map 5. For a total net gain.
It seems hard to believe that Kabam will give us close to 30k free BC for running 5x5. Pretty sure it’s a trap lol.
(MD and Class boosts)
No amount of grinding can increase loyalty.. the system they have in place is ****.. no player can run map 7 and do AW . It’s not realistic . Like I said, reason ppl aren’t revolting are because ppl have a stash from the refunds..
Either now or later. This will be a huuuuuge problem.
I know it seems that way but it's already been confirmed.
Right here.
Then er... don’t buy boosts for AW? Not a big deal. It’s a resource limitation much like players complaining about lack of gold, t4cc, t1a etc
Kabam want that we spend Loyalty with units
If you want to run 7x5 that’s true. The amount of ally that do that is a really tiny percentage of the overall population.
Analogy isn't great since you can't farm loyalty like you can for gold, t4cc, t1a etc
It's cos they're doing a special event to recognised the best of the best of who can afford want to complete map7. Even playing field with everyone going in blind.
I agree with this but question to what extent. If account sharing/piloting does not get players banned next AQ cycle the special titles will be alliance versions of MCOC's legends aka mercenary titles. Kabam would make an immensely positive impression by expanding the range of account sharing TOS violation penalties from only AW to AW & AQ.
Also can we have the full new milestone rewards chart? At what point do map 7 crystals come in
Why stop there? Why limit players to only running five maps a week? If they are good enough to do it, why not let alliances simply restart the map over and over again as fast as they can as often as they can? Why limit anything with any arbitrary limit other than what they can humanly execute?
All game rules are completely arbitrary, even the ones that people think aren't because they are either "obvious" or "fair." The point of the rules of any game is often not to make things necessarily better for each individual participant, but to make things better for the game as a whole.
There's a short version and an extremely long version. The short version is you soft cap the top because otherwise soon enough there is no middle or bottom, and then the top becomes meaningless, and then there's no game.
Map costs are ultimately not about forcing players to pay, they are about forcing players to make choices. You're supposed to make choices every day in the game surrounding every limited resource. The one thing we all know for sure is that for the players and the alliances at the very top, the one choice they are completely ignoring - which is why they are in fact at the very top - is to pace themselves through the difficulty. So the answer to the question "shouldn't difficulty be the barrier at the top" is: it never is.
Make encounters challenging, cool. Make people have to donate more, ok - donations can be earned in Windows players have time to play which for some is peaks and valleys. Prevent some people from doing content because they can’t routinely check in while at work doesn’t seem like a good setup. AW gives more flexibility for this and that runs 3/7 days. AQ runs 5/8.
Again hoping this comes out the right way, because I agree with some of your points, but there are also some things I disagree with, so why not keep the conversation going?
About choice - I think it's fair to say map costs force players to make decisions, but I also think it's fair to say that map costs, at a certain point, take away some of that choice and the game kind of makes the decision for the player. So we agree that cost should be there, but disagree on the amount.
About difficulty being the barrier - I think difficulty will be the biggest barrier for map 7 still, whether costs are high or not. People who didn't participate in the beta have no idea what they are in for. I think the success rate for even top 20 alliances will be less than 50% to complete 7x5.
About the top alliances pacing themselves - I think every single alliance outside of the 2-3 alliances competing for rank 1 will be pacing themselves. Partially by choice, and partially because that choice feels like it's not there. My prediction is that outside of the top 2-3 alliances, most top alliances who want to run map 7 will do as much as possible in the first 2 weeks, then shift to an alternating 76767 setup to go with the alliance war placement/attack phases. Or at least as much as their abilities and item stash will allow, so 76766 or 76666. I think this would be a common setup regardless of donation costs, but high costs push players into this setup even further. If it weren't for the high costs, we may see more alliances choosing to fully focus on AQ and put a much lower emphasis on AW. Maybe that's what the devs were going for, limiting player choice in the name of balancing AQ/AW participation. Maybe that's not it and that's just what it feels like.
I could absolutely be wrong about what alliances will do. This is not something that my alliance has decided on yet even. It'll be interesting to see what alliances do after these first 2 weeks, but this is what I believe will happen.
So could I, but here's the thing. I don't challenge what you think top alliances might do *now* immediately after Map 7 comes out. That's not what the costs are intended to address in the first place. They are intended (this is a bit of a presumption, but a safe one considering the prior discussions about Map 6) to moderate progress, meaning they are intended to impact what top alliances do in the future, over substantial periods of time.
The problem is that it is easy to make things cheaper, and really hard to make things more expensive. There's no intrinsic problem with the map costs being too high, because that's a self-regulating problem (i.e. people won't pay it). If the costs are so high that alliances simply cannot progress upward to more Map 7 runs, Kabam can reduce those costs in the future (as they have for lower maps). But if they set them too low, and top alliances immediately shoot for running 7x5 and get there quickly, you've practically blown it for Map 7 and have to wait for Map 8 to try again.
In fact, what if this is the try-again? Kabam stated that they wanted the costs of Map 6 to slow alliances down, and not try to just run 6x5 all the time. But they relatively quickly did. What if that happened way faster than Kabam intended, and so they are cranking the costs of Map 7 way up to prevent that from happening a second time? It actually seems reasonable, because my recollection is everyone was complaining about Map 6 costs, and then very quickly everyone stopped complaining, and the next thing I knew 6x5 was an actual thing in rapid succession.
Let's say there's a 90% chance you're right, and only a 10% chance you're wrong. *But* the problems associated with increasing the costs of the map if you're wrong are very high (not in terms of development time, but in terms of players complaining about the costs going up). Doesn't that change the nature of the choice in what to price the map?
Some things you need to get right the first time. But progress gates aren't one of them. Most of the progress gates in the game aren't even visible, and have no impact on the game. We don't have T5CC, we don't have 7* champs, we don't have Map 8, we don't have Act 15. If Map 7s costs are too high, that has a comparable impact on the game as if Map 7 didn't exist at all. Under those circumstances, setting the costs high with the option to lower then later seems to be safer.