I saw an account, 910mcs they dropped 150mcs stats, assuming they had 91 t14 they getting around a 910T refund. Sounds great right? How much of this 150mcs stat loss can they get back with 910 refund? It won’t be close enough and their dorm room will look a mess it does not feel good. The thing you want in games like this is to have something that feels good and doing the opposite will clearly push people away from spending and away from continuing to play in general. Feeling they can’t recover their loss and having to spend loads on top of what they already spent to achieve what they had in the first place. Many people already affected and screwed over with no way to fix or compensate, best option would be to hard reset to before tower update but you can’t do that because all the lower stat that have already made massive gain would then outrage. This is horrible execution of update. Next time consult with people who truly understand the game rather than whatever people you just randomly let in beta
Correct me if I’m wrong but it cost almost 6.8Q for 98 t11. If you had 98 t14 0 star you’re getting 980T refund and 6.38T value towards your t11 so you still need to make up 5.2Q to get back to your original stats? I’m not the best at math admittedly, I usually rely on other people for math lol. There need to be some huge upside to spending so much just to return to previous stats while you watching others gain stat so easily for nothing
Hi ATA, Will there be any additional refund or compensation for the later batches affected by the Great Dorm update rollout? The current situation seems to create a significant disadvantage for players who received the update/refund later. As you have previously explained, smaller accounts generally have greater growth potential than larger accounts. However, because the refunds have been staggered, players in the later batches are receiving their liquidity only after many of the lower-priced tutors have already been bumped or volleyed. Players who received their refunds earlier have been able to use that additional liquidity to force-bump/volley undervalued tutors and generate additional income from them. Meanwhile, players still waiting for their refunds have effectively been prevented from participating in the same opportunity—not because of our account size or strategy, but because of the delay in receiving the liquidity provided by ATA. This creates a situation where: Earlier batches received liquidity sooner and could act on undervalued tutors. Those tutors are subsequently being bumped to higher prices. By the time later batches receive their refunds, many of those opportunities are already gone. Tutor prices generally do not return to their previous levels unless someone deliberately drops them. Therefore, simply giving the same refund amount to everyone does not necessarily put all players in an equivalent position, because the timing itself has an economic impact. For later-batch players, the choice is essentially: Ask the tutor to hold the upgrade and potentially suffer the opportunity cost of delaying the upgrade; or Proceed with the upgrade and potentially lose the tutor due to the undervalue prices. Neither situation is something later-batch players created or chose. I therefore think it would be reasonable for ATA to consider some form of delay compensation or additional refund for players who were affected by the later rollout, rather than treating every batch as though they had the same opportunity to use their refunded liquidity. I also hope ATA can explain how the rollout was designed to ensure that players in different batches were not put at materially different economic advantages purely because of when they received the update. If the answer is simply that everyone receives the same refund regardless of when they received it, then I think ATA should explain how the lost opportunity to participate in the tutor market during the delay is being accounted for. This is ultimately about fairness. ATA created the rollout and the resulting timing differences, so I believe ATA should also take responsibility for the consequences of those differences rather than leaving later-batch players to absorb the loss. And if there is a specific reason why additional compensation is not being considered, please explain the rationale and the criteria used to determine that the later batches have not been disadvantaged. Thanks.
Additionally, if the money refunded was meant for us to customise our build, it should’ve been made such that the money can only be spent on the dorms and not other stuff like tuts. Or else people will have an advantage over others. Kind of how you made some 999 not recyclable, you could’ve made it such that the cash can only be used on dorm mates.
Another point that needs to be addressed: The previous batch consists largely of the bigger/end-game players who were affected by the Great Dorm mechanics. Their new dorm builds can actually result in their stats being slightly lower, so naturally they may not be underpriced much. But this creates another issue for the later batches. If those bigger players haven’t upgraded much, their hire value aren’t heavily underpriced tutors that later players can take advantage of. Their stats have only changed slightly. The real opportunity is with the smaller players, because some of them can potentially double or even triple their stats under the new system. Those are the tutors that can become significantly undervalued relative to their new potential. So by delaying the update for the later/end-game batches, ATA isn’t just delaying our refund. You’re also potentially delaying our ability to participate in the actual tutor market opportunities created by the update. By the time we finally receive the update and refund, the smaller players who have already received the update may have already been bumped or volleyed. Meanwhile, the tutors belonging to the previous batch of bigger players may not have increased enough to create the same opportunities. That means later batches could end up with: Less access to undervalued tutors created by smaller players’ stat increases. Less opportunity to profit from bumping/volleying those tutors. The same refund amount as earlier batches, despite receiving it later. And potentially lower stats themselves as a result of the Great Dorm mechanics. So again, the issue isn’t simply whether we receive the same amount of money back. The timing of when we receive it materially affects what we can actually do with that money. We’re being penalised for an update that ATA chose to roll out late and then took multiple hunts and promos to complete. If it were a one- or two-day delay, fair enough. But this has been multiple hunts and multiple promos, which represents a substantial amount of gameplay and market activity. And this delay still hasn’t really been explained. As players, consumers and customers, we have no control over when our accounts receive the update or refund. We can’t choose our batch, speed up the rollout, or recreate the tutor opportunities that existed several hunts ago. So why should the later batches be expected to absorb the economic consequences of ATA’s rollout delay? If ATA considers the current refund sufficient for every batch, regardless of when that batch received the update, then I think ATA should explain how the lost tutor-market opportunities caused by the delay were accounted for.
Has anyone seen if the low stats from T10 and T11 get compensated with a much bigger plunder increase?
I still haven’t gotten an answer on why 2 identical accounts across the board got different refunds and stats jumps.
ATA needs to start taking responsibility for its mistakes. Players spend real money and countless hours supporting this game, and we deserve better than being ignored when something goes wrong. When bugs, errors, faulty updates, or game-related issues negatively impact players, the developers need to acknowledge what happened, communicate honestly, fix the problem, and provide fair compensation when appropriate. Players should not have to repeatedly fight for support or feel like their money is valued more than their experience. You cannot expect players to keep spending and supporting the game while refusing to take accountability when mistakes happen. We deserve transparency, respect, and action—not excuses or silence. If PIMD wants players to continue investing in the game, it needs to show that it actually values the people who keep it running.