**WINTER OF WOE - BONUS OBJECTIVE POINT**
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.
There is currently an issue where some Alliances are are unable to find a match in Alliance Wars, or are receiving Byes without getting the benefits of the Win. We will be adjusting the Season Points of the Alliances that are affected within the coming weeks, and will be working to compensate them for their missed Per War rewards as well.
Additionally, we are working to address an issue where new Members of an Alliance are unable to place Defenders for the next War after joining. We are working to address this, but it will require a future update.
Additionally, we are working to address an issue where new Members of an Alliance are unable to place Defenders for the next War after joining. We are working to address this, but it will require a future update.
Comments
You can sell performance, you can sell convenience, and you can sell appearance. Inventory space is arguably a convenience item: it doesn't directly impact game performance, it affects how convenient it is to manage resources (this can have an indirect impact on performance, but it is qualitatively different than direct performance). Some people think it is okay to sell performance in small doses, but quality of life convenience benefits should be given to everyone. But there are others who feel the reverse: that all other things being equal, convenience is better to sell than performance, because convenience creates a smaller gap between those who spend and those who don't.
At the moment MCOC sells performance in different degrees for the most part. Expanding that from all performance to a mix of performance and convenience can be seen as an acknowledgement of the players who would rather see more revenue come from things other than direct performance.
Like I stated before, I don't know if it is legal though. Governments are coming hard at gaming companies right now.
But that argument shouldn’t stop them from using good ideas like that of TheTalents because then nothing could be implemented.
There are many of us who would understand the effort done to appeal to both sides and personally I’d be happy with any of the perks. Be it gold, inventory increase or energy. Any of them would be greatly appreciated.
(I think inventory increase is the only one that’s “warranted” but to each his own)
The game can't be short of gold, because the game never runs out of gold. Only players can have shortages of anything. And that can happen because the game design doesn't contain enough opportunities to get the thing, or because some players don't take advantage of those opportunities. Or it could simply be inevitable, because when you need many different currencies simultaneously everyone is going to run out of one or the other, because that's when you must stop spending by definition.
I happen to believe the game's resource earning opportunities are fairly well balanced for the most part overall, even if there are localized oddities. But I wouldn't describe it as "gold shortages don't exist" because that would imply I was dismissing players experiencing a deficiency of those resources, however that deficiency arises.
Both made videos saying that this in its current state changes absolutely nothing for anyone that's f2p really.
As much as I feel it’s the wrong choice to lock specific quests and an inventory increase behind a paywall, i must admit that as it is at the minute, it’s nothing much to worry about.
It’s what it may represent that has me very worried personally
Paying players have to decide if they are getting enough for their money. If they decide they aren't, then they will stop spending. Conversely, free players have to decide if the free experience is enough for them, relative to what paying customers get. If they don't, they won't play or won't start playing. The game has to balance the two, but everything they do will gain some and lose others. The game doesn't need everyone to agree that the free experience is good enough. It just needs enough people to agree to play the game. And honestly, people who think the free experience in MCOC is somehow bad just haven't experienced the full range of options out there.
In my opinion, free players get huge value for paying nothing when playing this game, especially compared to all other options. I think enough people would agree that the game's future isn't problematic.
Although I do spend occasionally, I would say the vast majority of my game progress has been fueled by arena grinding, which is entirely free (by fueled I mean the in-game resources I have, as opposed to things like my game playing skills or knowledge of the game which also contribute). If I hadn't spent on the game my progress would be lower than it is now for sure, but not dramatically so. It isn't actually easy to generate large amounts of progress in the game with spending, unless you spend huge sums of money which I don't. That's actually one of the things I like about the game. My place in the pecking order is primarily a product of my gameplay, not my spending. I'm never going to overtake COWhale, and I don't think I can even overtake someone like Seatin with any amount of gameplay, but I don't need to do either to enjoy playing the game.
but rather than units (or even put it at a high unit count) treat it like any normal unit package with a purchase limit. Thoughts?
So it looks like a "let them comment, whatever they say we have already decided"