ANB Idea, sounds crazy but give it some thought.

[steampunk]

Another idea,

When ANB character is deleted. All ANB record is also removed so the player can play the event all over again from the beginning.

Of course all gems that was spent on the first try also gone.

Atleast for those who play horribly (like me) can do something other than wait for another ANB.

[steampunk]

Agree with this one. But I think it's bad business.

[Travis | Support Mgr.]

Would you like me to close and archive this thread?

[Verminnard]

While I dont agree with all points made by Tin man which resulted in a post from me in the middle of a really crappy day. Sorry for that Tin man. I do agree with the fact that while i thought it was decent idea, it is really a dead idea. You cant do it without somehow hurting the free players which was never the intent. Tin is correct and i have no problem stating that. It does not solve what I feel is the real issue behind it with out taking away from the experience of the honest player.
Thanks for considering and talking about it all the same. If we want a better game it is we the players that need to come up with things that drive the game it that direction.

[Paul123]

Instead of putting a cap on the gems used on ANB. Another idea would be changing the ranking system to points system and take into consideration the gem used . I'm sure someone can come up with some formula.

[Tin Man]

Would a 20k gem transfer limit, limit your spending?

Why limit any transfer if you do not cap the spending allowed during ANBs? If you cap the spending allowed during ANBs then the transfer limit should match the spending limit which, in turn, renders the transfer limit meaningless.

You want to penalize Free2Play players that spend hours and days, legitimately, farming gemstones while leaving the option for unlimited gems available for anyone that wants to buy them?

Seems to be a huge imbalance there. Just limiting the sharing gems seems like a really, really unfair proposal.

Proposing to limit the sharing of gems, regardless of the reason, just seems like a rather poor idea.

So, y'all that get 255 gems a day from ad boxes can enjoy those ad boxes and the limited gem sharing while those of us that don't get ad boxes are limited by sharing with no way to make up the loss of 2040 gems that are available to players that can view ad boxes, which is over 40% of the proposed sharing limit. Even if you up the sharing limit to 20K, then that is still over 10% of the larger limit.

So, does that mean if you open one ad box that your sharing limit should be reduced by the 2040 gems? That would seem to be a nightmare for the developers to get right when there are so many long term bugs.

[Stusmith50]

Would a 20k gem transfer limit, limit your spending?

[skunkwork]

For me limiting gems will only cause problems for us who spend hours and hours farming for gems, me alone spend atleast 4 hours/day farming for gems(making new character everyday/watching ads/speed running).
Restricting us on our hard earned gems is a lazy idea. We work for it and we will use it according to our own discretion.

[Tin Man]

LoXRoX The major issue is that if you limit the sharing of gems between regular heroes and ANB heroes while there is a way for some players to farm gems with ANB heroes that others can not use, ad boxes are a prime example, then you are harming many legitimate players. That math is quite simple.

Full disclaimer? I have suggested players NOT watch ad boxes with their ANB heroes because watching ad boxes costs seconds per box just opening the box and recovering from the box. Gathering all your ad boxes outside of ANB is prudent usage of the Event Timer.

The potential disparities in ANB gem farming are the only reason that I feel a gem sharing cap is dead upon arrival without a way of balancing out gem acquisitions.

I have not chimed in on whether or not any kind of restrictions is a good or bad thing. I have just tried to point out the elephant in the room about just bluntly limiting the sharing of gems between regular and ANB heroes in a vacuum of information.

[LoXRoX]

Alright, thank you for explaining this. I think I now have a better understanding. So, I see how my recurring reference to botters has contributed to making this discussion more complicated than necessary. Coming back to the original suggestion, I still don't see the faults of a "Transfer-Cap". I see the faults in a "Spending-Cap" though. Let's say the devs would disable Adboxes and introduce a "Transfer-Cap" would there be another disadvantage besides that the Pay2Win "problem" Triggus explained was exacerbated? (sorry if you already have explained this but I still don't get it.) Have fun with you remaining play time

[Tin Man]

LoXRoX Fundamentally? If you want to have a thread discussing capping the number of gems you may spend during ANBs then have that discussion. Leave any discussion regarding alternate rules players as a separate issue that is much bigger than any discussion about gem spending. Any time you introduce the topic of alternate rules players the discussion will go sideways and any productive discourse goes out the door.

This thread started as a very narrow discussion on limiting the sharing of gems between regular and ANB heroes, not on a gem spending cap. Limiting the sharing of gems between regular and ANB heroes without a hard gem spending cap is fundamentally faulty at best. Attempts to point that out were not taken well and accusations of embracing alternate rules made.

I still feel that limiting or eliminating the sharing or gems between regular and ANB heroes would serve to mostly harm players who use acceptable rules. Capping gem spending during an event? That is a whole different discussion.

That, in a nutshell, is why I am done with this thread just as others have said they are done with the thread. Once a thread goes off the rails it is near impossible to return it.

Free2Play and Pay2Win are not mutually exclusive and Free2Play does not necessarily mean no revenue for the developers.

Nhat Suckers at this game UNITE! How could I let that one slide?

Now, I have an ANB that I actually need to play sooner or later. I am still level 54 for goodness sake. Best of luck to every! May you accomplish what you desire.

[Keaven]

From the input of others I don't think this would work well.

[Triggus]

For some reason you guys steered the discussion toward cheats, the point of the cap is not only to rule cheaters outs but actually limit P2win factor in the game that was designed not to be money sink (and devs quite proud of it) in the first place. Keeping in mind that the top players from the new revamped ANB aren't doing very well outside of ANB quite often having few or no medals at all indicating that they aren't veterans with accumulated super secret knowledge and tons of gems over time. This are people in majority who "abused" their way into top by spending hundreds $$ (not to mention "alternative" way of getting gems) because they can and will and this is legit..but is it right and adding value to the gameplay ?
And me among many others do not like this model, there are reasons why we've chosen Eternium and one of the key factors was that P2W element in the game was limited to bare minimum (still providing devs with revenue and paying players to make their life easier in the game reducing time needed to farm etc).
And as I already mentioned most of the players with massive gem pools they managed saving over time or by painstakingly 5 staring story mode over and over again, knowing how hard these were to get even having a lot (100k +) rarely are throwing all in for single anb.

I myself am not a big fan of free gaming (the free gaming idea born actually p2w model) If we happy to pay a lot for fags or booze why not to pay for our "hobby", the best model is still imho subscription model that is dying nowadays, all pay the same, monthly having access to all the game has to offer only the skill and dedication plus some luck makes a difference on how you perform. But this is gone, that's fine. As many I buy the gems per day, season pass and some gems or value pack here and there to support devs and limited time I can dedicate gaming. And this was working fine until recent changes to ANB that support p2w in the way that have never had place in this game before. So there is a problem here and it will need to be tackled somehow either by placing the right cap (not too low not to high from the majority point of view) or other measures devs could come with or many players(including me) will probably consider their options if nothing changes next anb.

[LoXRoX]

What does the capping really achieve? A uniform limitation on every player for the Gems that they bring into the event, regardless of whether they achieved it legitimately or not. The core of the problem still exists, so while it provides you with a feeling of "fairness", no such things have been achieved. Those so-called botters will still be bringing what ever the capped amount is every ANB and do whatever they want with it... Put the cap too high and it's meaningless, putting it too low means everyone can do less...

To reveal where I'm coming from: Fairness doesn't exist and if it existed we couldn't grasp it objectively. So, I'm completely fine with a "feeling of fairness". It's actually the only thing I care about.

I agree a too high cap would be meaningless. I also agree with "putting it too low means everyone can do less..." in an absolute sense. In a relative sense (and that's the only important factor imho for the competition) the (desired) effect will be that skill is relatively more important than pre-farmed gems. As you still can buy gems which is fine, as it benefits the devs and therefore the community.

[Tin Man]

Just to be clear, I was not trying to suggest that all the problems need to be solved at once. I only contributed to ask questions and suggest the possible implications of any proposals. As you allude, any proposal should be able to withstand legitimate questions and scrutiny.

However, the discussion was starting to cause personal interjection from me rather than just devil's advocate which is why I felt it necessary to remove myself from the discussion.

Whatever comes from the discussion? I am sure my ability to meet personal goals will not be impacted.

The players that don't actually stink at the game are much better sources of possible resolution.