Eternium
Eternium

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANB Idea, sounds crazy but give it some thought.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • RockDoc
    commented on 's reply
    That is a very subtle reference. Cudos on incorporating in a comment.

  • Montresor
    commented on 's reply
    It's a little bit obscure. "The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe"

  • RockDoc
    commented on 's reply
    I like Frank, guess I'm not as big a fan since I missed your reference to him.

  • Montresor
    commented on 's reply
    apparently not many Frank Zappa fans on the board

  • Triggus
    replied
    Originally posted by Montresor View Post
    inasmuch as this is a thread about competitive balance in ANBs, and inasmuch as i am not bringing in anything from discord without context (since i'm not on discord!), hopefully this will pass muster to be included in this thread. this is a fairly complex topic.

    So if i have followed this massive thread trail correctly, the crux of this biscuit is there's concern with massive, potentially-but-not-necessarily ill-gotten gem stacks upsetting the competitive balance in ANBs. Several ideas have been proposed to ameliorate this, including limiting gems from main, and limiting total gems spent. A couple of thoughts if i may:
    1. limiting gems transfer simply shifts power to people who spend money on event packs
    2. Limiting gems transfer also undercuts the value of ad-boxes outside of ANBs, and those may be a big source of revenue to the game (we don't know)
    3. limiting total gems spent still allows botters to have an advantage (20k gems is a huge sum to me, although i don't farm gems and know it's possible to do so)

    I would propose an alternate option, which is limiting the number of things that can be purchased during an ANB - temporarily close down the consumables shop, and have everything run through the ANB purchase icon. Each item would have either a gem or real currency cost. The ANB shop would have the option to buy anything from the consumables trader, and also the ANB specific bundles. Every item would also have a limit - say, three legendary crates, five master crates, unlimited XP / Gold boosters, ten gemestone selections, etc. real currency prices would be based around gem purchase prices.

    This way, every player knows what the max potential spend by the top of the leaderboard is. The revenue stream in between ANB events (season pass, monthly gems, ad boxes) still retains value. People who don't have time to farm gems have the ability to spend actual money. And everyone knows what the max available spend is for competing for the top spot.
    This is an interesting idea indeed, just couple of corrections on your above points :
    "1. limiting gems transfer simply shifts power to people who spend money on event packs"

    Value packs are already limited to 3 per person not much of power shift , however you still can buy unlimited gems during the event, so whoever has the money and willing to spend still got this advantage as it is. As proposed limits of 20k are quite high and way above average single ANB spent , can't see this being issue, it will limit how much botters and IRL whales can spend though which is not bad thing from majority point of view

    "2. Limiting gems transfer also undercuts the value of ad-boxes outside of ANBs, and those may be a big source of revenue to the game (we don't know)"

    Oh well ad boxes are limited already to 50 a day, assuming someone do they all every day of a month we looking what 7500k gems from ad boxes ? (what about pc players or ios issues ? some people can't get any boxes at all) - then add the daily subscription of 100 gems this will add another 3k a month. Do the daily quests yet another 3k. we looking at 13,5 k gems a month. Now series of ANB will allow to use 60k total. You will still need a few months gap between ANBs to match it or run 5star story like there was no tomorrow. Yet as it seems to be we have people spending up to 50k per event, on top of that some vets have accumulated little fortunes over time having 100k plus - it does not seems they happy to spend it all on single ANB series considering how much time and pain it costed them to get these. So most of those who spent such a amounts are simply buying or getting it from "alternative" sources hence the amount of people without or very few medals occupying top of ANB LBs (they don't seem very veteran to me spending their hard earned fortunes)

    "3. limiting total gems spent still allows botters to have an advantage (20k gems is a huge sum to me, although i don't farm gems and know it's possible to do so)"
    This point is a bit illogical and in contradiction to previous 2 points, the more you can spend the bigger the gap between botters and legit players.
    Last edited by Triggus; 05-13-2020, 11:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Montresor
    replied
    inasmuch as this is a thread about competitive balance in ANBs, and inasmuch as i am not bringing in anything from discord without context (since i'm not on discord!), hopefully this will pass muster to be included in this thread. this is a fairly complex topic.

    So if i have followed this massive thread trail correctly, the crux of this biscuit is there's concern with massive, potentially-but-not-necessarily ill-gotten gem stacks upsetting the competitive balance in ANBs. Several ideas have been proposed to ameliorate this, including limiting gems from main, and limiting total gems spent. A couple of thoughts if i may:
    1. limiting gems transfer simply shifts power to people who spend money on event packs
    2. Limiting gems transfer also undercuts the value of ad-boxes outside of ANBs, and those may be a big source of revenue to the game (we don't know)
    3. limiting total gems spent still allows botters to have an advantage (20k gems is a huge sum to me, although i don't farm gems and know it's possible to do so)

    I would propose an alternate option, which is limiting the number of things that can be purchased during an ANB - temporarily close down the consumables shop, and have everything run through the ANB purchase icon. Each item would have either a gem or real currency cost. The ANB shop would have the option to buy anything from the consumables trader, and also the ANB specific bundles. Every item would also have a limit - say, three legendary crates, five master crates, unlimited XP / Gold boosters, ten gemestone selections, etc. real currency prices would be based around gem purchase prices.

    This way, every player knows what the max potential spend by the top of the leaderboard is. The revenue stream in between ANB events (season pass, monthly gems, ad boxes) still retains value. People who don't have time to farm gems have the ability to spend actual money. And everyone knows what the max available spend is for competing for the top spot.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tin Man
    commented on 's reply
    13ft shadow It is never a problem. There was never any confusion on my side. I just figured that you were picking up from a conversation in Discord with details that were not present here and ended up jumping the shark in relation to us that were oblivious to the Discord discussion.

    Besides, how can anyone not like some Muddy Waters?

  • 13ft shadow
    commented on 's reply
    i suppose i can take ur advice and stop twisting the topic of this thread lol.. guess i didn't properly read the op, and just assumed it was relevant to anb cap only, not something else entirely lol. sorry to be such a trouble maker tinman, i will go back to the shadowlands now and bask in the darkness.. thnx much for clarifying my mix up here, and your patience. guess the weed is just getting too potent up here... i feel i must refocus myself lol, thnx again much tinman!

  • 13ft shadow
    commented on 's reply
    ahh, finally i think i see the problem here, tinman lol. i believe what is happening here is a confusion over two different peoples opinions, in this thread.. have nvr changed what i suggested about this gem cap here, and nvr have 1 time, spoke here or on discord about any gem sharing cap of any kind. that was verminard's suggestion, no offense to him, and while i did thank him for getting the convo started, i nvr had anything to do with that particular suggestion lol. if you go back and read my actual posts, i simply advocate for a 20k gem cap for anb events only.. nvr had anything to do with gem sharing discussions, other than a suggestion for a 10% end event gem match, similar to season match.. but that would not be a cap, simply some extra gems, from dp as thank you for playing event.. but thats just me speaking outloud, of course lol.. i think we are actually both on the same side here in the end. just the cap to anb gem spending, thats all, i promise you with all my shadow

  • Tin Man
    replied
    Originally posted by 13ft shadow View Post
    ... so, has anyone that is worried about this being a problem for honest free to play players, unable to pay or receive ads, actually ever spent 20k or over 20k for any 1 single individual anb event?.. im just asking lol.. are you even aware what is capable if being purchased for 20k gems, before implying such, or are you just totally assuming that wouldn't be plenty for said individuals to feel comfortable, while knowing others are like capped?.. lol
    The short answer to your question? Yes. Just did it. Then again? I readily admit that I stink at the game.

    Keep in mind that your current post and the original post for this thread are two different topics.

    Your post? Capping gem spending during ANBs.

    The original post? Capping gem sharing WITHOUT capping gem spending during ANBs.

    Capping the ability to share gems while leaving ANBs without a gem spending limit that matches the sharing cap clearly hampers the Free2Play players. Not sure how you can say anything other than that. Only allowing the initially proposed 5k gems to be shared between ANB and regular heroes while allowing unlimited gem spending during the same ANB would be completely unfair to players that do not want to buy gems during ANBs.

    Having a gem spending cap for ANBs? I have said is a valid and worthy discussion. However, you are bringing up a topic that is completely different from the original premise of this thread. Questioning the responses to the original thread while discussing a completely different topic just muddies the waters. The original post even states that "I understand, people can still buy gems in ANB and many will." after saying "Limit the number of gems that can be used from the main account during ANB or separate them completely" so I really do not understand how you are equating the concerns expressed here with those concerns applying to your proposed cap.

    A hard cap can not be read into any post until post #6 and is not clearly mentioned until post #7. While commenting on post #7? The original poster even clearly states that the "Purpose is not to limit the amount of gems you can use or buy in ANB. Just limit the amount you can bring over from your main account at the start of ANB. People would still be able to buy as many gems in ANB as they saw fit."

    How do these conversations apply to your proposal for a hard spending cap? Are you trying to say that you are proposing a hard, 20K gem, spending limit while only allowing 5K of these gems to come from a player's existing reserves? That is not how I have read any of your posts.

    Quit mudding the waters by taking the thread topic off the rails. Your discussion of a cap is not the topic of this thread, as originally posted, and should be brought up in a separate thread.

    You know you are my bud. You are just bringing up a different topic.

    Leave a comment:


  • 13ft shadow
    replied
    1st off, can completely understand how people would be unsure about this. without long thought, or having explored every angle properly, including testing. it would appear to be creating issues for some, but let me ask a question for anyone who feels this will harm free to play players over the course of this new eventium marathon. it would seem that implying such, without proper testing would be not recommended..

    so, has anyone that is worried about this being a problem for honest free to play players, unable to pay or receive ads, actually ever spent 20k or over 20k for any 1 single individual anb event?.. im just asking lol.. are you even aware what is capable if being purchased for 20k gems, before implying such, or are you just totally assuming that wouldn't be plenty for said individuals to feel comfortable, while knowing others are like capped?.. lol

    is anyone here actually trying to imply, that with the new schedule of seasons/anbs, (4 season/year and 6anb/season) that 20k gems isn't more than fair to an "honest" free to play player?.. lol just how many "honest" free to play players do you believe will farm 480k gems/year? i guess i just still don't understand the issue here.

    i defy "honest" free to play players tell me that they farm well over 500k gems/year and don't want to keep extra gems for boosters for main LMAO

    this is just silly tbh.. hopefully adrian and dp crew can see this is just best all around, for everyone.

    best wishes to all, and hope you enjoyed your gold league play!!!
    -shadow13

    Leave a comment:


  • steampunk
    commented on 's reply
    Yes, for now the record is still remains.

    My input is to reset the event timer but also reset the event record with everything in it. A clean slate.

  • Tin Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Verminnard View Post
    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.
    You know what? Discussion is a good thing.

    Honestly? The foundation of your idea is decent. I just tried to point out some possible unintended consequences without some tweaks. In the greater scheme of things? That is not the most important issue.

    I am sorry that you had a really crappy day and I hope things improved. There is enough stress going on right now in life without things related to a game adding to it. If any of my actions or words added to your crappy day, for that I am truly sorry.

    Keep the ideas coming.

    Stay safe. Stay well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tin Man
    commented on 's reply
    Actually, the character record is not deleted and it still remains on the leaderboard.

  • Verminnard
    commented on 's reply
    I am good with that Travis.
Working...
X