DocJC wrote: » Omni wrote: » 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.
Omni wrote: » 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.
Kabam Miike wrote: » Raganator wrote: » 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.
Raganator wrote: » Really trying to burn out officers these days. Can't wait for those nodes to make it to AW.
Kabam Miike wrote: » FactorQ wrote: » to confirm, map 7 crystals only contain T5B fragments? nothing else? Map 7 Crystals contain everything that can be found in a Map 6 Crystal, but also have a chance at Tier 5 Basic Catalyst Fragments.
FactorQ wrote: » to confirm, map 7 crystals only contain T5B fragments? nothing else?
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: » 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.
Vale84 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. if only you didnt need loyalty for boosts in seasons.
Kabam DK wrote: » DTMelodicMetal wrote: » @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.
DTMelodicMetal wrote: » @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?
CoatHang3r wrote: » Vale84 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. 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....
TwistedEnigma17 wrote: » 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?
Buttehrs wrote: » TwistedEnigma17 wrote: » 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.
TwistedEnigma17 wrote: » Buttehrs wrote: » TwistedEnigma17 wrote: » 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.
Kabam DK wrote: » Rockon wrote: » 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
Rockon wrote: » 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?
Cranmer00 wrote: » 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.
Fabi1989 wrote: » Cranmer00 wrote: » 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
xNig wrote: » 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
PkArr0w wrote: » 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!
SandeepS wrote: » 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.
RagamugginGunner wrote: » On one hand, what's the point of map costs anyway? Shouldn't the difficulty of the content be the barrier to the content?
DNA3000 wrote: » RagamugginGunner wrote: » 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.
BrianGrant wrote: » I could absolutely be wrong about what alliances will do.
