Every great 4* (other than witch, thor, wolverine) is available as a 5*/6*.
They are not trying to tailor gameplay experiences to give you unique challenges. Variant did an okay job with that. You had to break up your trinities and synergies and deal with enemies head to head. But you could bring a 2*/3* of something to make a new helpful synergy or boost your stronger champs of a certain class.
This is just flat out an "have you opened enough crystals and/or gotten super lucky" gate. That's it.
Heimdall will still heal you, revive you. etc. Nick Fury will still give you attack. Trinities will still synergies.. All on the condition you have them at 5* or higher, which can be an expensive, if not impossible task for players.
I'd much rather see synergy suppression and allow all champs in. This would truly make it a skill based challenge, not a 'did you get ghost wasp antman hood or blade spark g' in the highest rarity' challenge.
But this is going live and people are going to either deal with it or not. I suspect many will, and many will not..
Your Beta testers were [removed]. Were they given advanced rosters with synergy?
No, they used their own Rosters, and were from a variety of different progression levels, though we did ensure that they had been able to complete Act 5 and had a decent size of Roster for 5 and 6-Star Champions.
Long Distance Relationship - While close to the Defender, the Attacker gains a Weakness Debuff every 3 seconds, reducing their attack by 10% permanently. Staying far away from the Defender causes these Weakness effects to fall off.
Am I reading this wrong says permanently then tells me how to remove them
No worries. It’s permanent as long as the Weakness stays on. There’s a slight language error but no biggie lol
Your Beta testers were [removed]. Were they given advanced rosters with synergy?
As Miike mentioned, us beta testers weren’t given rosters. We used our existing rosters to clear the act. Most of the BS were removed making it significantly easy, esp for 6.1.1. 😂
These buffs won’t apply until we become cavalier? Because if I read it correctly it should be applied now not later
I’m not sure why it appears after 6.1.1 but that’s just the uncollected stuff. Pretty silly to show anyone working on act 6 that grandmaster crystals are now unlocked.
These buffs won’t apply until we become cavalier? Because if I read it correctly it should be applied now not later
I’m not sure why it appears after 6.1.1 but that’s just the uncollected stuff. Pretty silly to show anyone working on act 6 that grandmaster crystals are now unlocked.
Yeah I know but then you look at progression and it says this
It’s because they put out an untested product plain and simple. Theses are errors that should be caught in unit testing and never make it out to the public
Beta testers didn’t know the rewards nor had these new interface alerts etc when the test was on going. Didn’t even know that there’ll be a new title for 6.1 😂
Quest 6.1.3 looks weird. could one of the mods check it? I was told you would need 10 paths for each quest but that one looks like it can be done in 4 based on the way the paths go
Straight from the kabams ceo mouth, so you tell me who’s lying @Kabam Miike him, or are you guys lying to him on wtf y’all are doing
🤔🤔🤔
@Busa_6 Off topic, but you’re now the point man to post that pic of the Kabam CEO interview every time someone says logging in for the calendar is just a big nothing. He thinks our time is worth something even if his customers don’t.
Dr. Zola
That's twisting people's words. I think my customers' time is valuable, but I also don't pay them anything for it. If a customer of mine said they read an interview where I said my customer's time was valuable, so they demanded I compensate them for it, I'd kick them out of my office with my actual feet.
Obviously, I disagree that it twists anything, and I think someone who views one minute of his customers’ time as vitally important disagrees with you as well.
But I give you points for your most succinct post in ages.
Dr. Zola
Fortunately for me, I can literally turn to another business owner visiting me right now and ask the two part question: do you think your customers' time is valuable, and do you think they deserve to be compensated for any time they spend during your interactions.
The answer to the first question is yes. I can't transcribe the entire answer to the second question. It started with "say what?' and then it was a lot of weird sounds while I tried to elaborate. But I think the gist of the answer is "no." So while I think "someone" might agree with you here, it wouldn't be this particular someone.
Facetiously asking the wrong question is cute, but misses the point.
Why don’t you ask him/her if it’s better to have his customers using and thinking about his/her product or something else? I’m pretty sure the answer isn’t “something else.”
Someone seems to think he is competing for “share of mind,” and that having more “share of mind” will translate into more “share of wallet.” I don’t think that’s a tricky thing to understand.
Dr. Zola
I would agree that's the wrong question, that's the point. Quoting someone that says words to the effect of "my customer's time is valuable" to support the notion that things like calendar rewards are in some way compensating for login time is totally wrong.
I don't disagree with the CEO's words. I disagree with attempting to use those words to mean anything except what they mean. The value of a customer's time is, at least for a company like Kabam, that you're competing for mindshare. The customer's time is valuable to *them*, and you're trying to get them to spend it on *you*. But the customer's time is not valuable in the sense that you owe them something for their time. That's completely different.
If you want to use the quote to support the notion that MCOC should be as entertaining as possible, you'll get no argument from me. If you try to use it to argue against the notion that the company doesn't specifically owe customers any compensation for the time they spend, that's when I'll point out that's completely ridiculous.
I consider my customer's time value, in the sense that I don't want to waste it. But the time they spend on the business activities they buy from me as a customer is not time that they deserve any compensation for. They pay for my time. I don't pay for theirs.
They may have never actually said 4* were too weak but it definitely was implied. What other reason could you have to say they would cause frustration ?
Hang on, that's two different things. You said "The official 'answer' is that 4* champions would not be able to take on Act 6 because they are too weak." That's false: they didn't say that. They did say that allowing 4* champs in Act 6 could lead to frustration, but that doesn't mean there's anything explicitly wrong with 4* champs. Rather, that means all players are different, and for many players attempting to use 4* champs could lead to frustration.
The very post you quote literally contains the answer to the question "what other reason could you have" which I've bolded for emphasis. Are 4* champs too weak to run Uncollected? No, they are not. Lots of people use them. Does using them or lower rosters in general in Uncollected cause frustration? Yes, we absolutely know that's true, because actual players express actual frustration about the content being too strong for their rosters. The same statement is almost certainly true of Act 6's difficulty, only to a higher degree. Whether this is something you allow or not is a judgment call for a designer.
Your original statement said that "MANY" players attempting act 6 with 4* "COULD" have frustrations and that was "UNDENIABLY" true. This is not a matter of fact and is simply your opinion. Act 6 is not out so this is all hypothetical.
Except any reasonable person would assume that Act 6 would have more difficulty than Uncollected, which we already know with certainty suffers from this situation. Also, I don't have to assume, as I beta tested the content.
This thought process is completely wrong, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause problems for the game that would be magically solved if the players who aren't ready for Uncollected were somehow barred from even attempting it. Of course, that's not practical: there's no way to know in advance if someone can or can't do it.
Kabam isn't saying you personally won't be able to do Act 6 with 4* champs. They are saying that the percentage of people who can among all players who will try is low enough to be a problem. In and of itself that isn't the justification for the progress gate, but it is a legitimate factor in favor of it.
Here you say on the one hand you can't know in advance if players can do content or not and its impractical to do that and then on the other hand you're saying kabam know that only a small percentage of players can do the content with 4* and thus that's one of the factors for this gating. Well unless you work for kabam then you don't know what they are "saying" by this gate anymore then the rest of the community. Also you are contradicting yourself here.
How is it a contradiction to say that I cannot know, for any particular person, whether content will be difficult, but I can know with reasonable certainty that the content will be difficult for a large number of players. We already *know* with absolute certainty that Uncollected is "difficult" for most players because most players cannot even *become* Uncollected: that level of difficulty is either too difficult to do directly or too difficult to even do the earlier prerequisite content for. If you want to debate the notion that technically we don't have the numbers to prove that, say, more than 50% of the player population isn't already Uncollected, go find someone else to debate that.
@Kabam Miike any update on who the 6* champ awarded to top 20 legends will be?
We're not quite ready to reveal that just yet. We have a pretty good idea, but need to make sure it's 100% doable before we can announce anything.
Not tested? Can’t say I’m surprised
To be honest, Maestro was confirmed to be a playable champion in the future. It might be that champion
That would be cool, but then I sadly realize if it was I wouldn't be able to get that champion. Still wish I could Thanos or Kang, but I realize they are items awarded based on doing a particular event, etc.
Straight from the kabams ceo mouth, so you tell me who’s lying @Kabam Miike him, or are you guys lying to him on wtf y’all are doing
🤔🤔🤔
@Busa_6 Off topic, but you’re now the point man to post that pic of the Kabam CEO interview every time someone says logging in for the calendar is just a big nothing. He thinks our time is worth something even if his customers don’t.
Dr. Zola
That's twisting people's words. I think my customers' time is valuable, but I also don't pay them anything for it. If a customer of mine said they read an interview where I said my customer's time was valuable, so they demanded I compensate them for it, I'd kick them out of my office with my actual feet.
Obviously, I disagree that it twists anything, and I think someone who views one minute of his customers’ time as vitally important disagrees with you as well.
But I give you points for your most succinct post in ages.
Dr. Zola
Fortunately for me, I can literally turn to another business owner visiting me right now and ask the two part question: do you think your customers' time is valuable, and do you think they deserve to be compensated for any time they spend during your interactions.
The answer to the first question is yes. I can't transcribe the entire answer to the second question. It started with "say what?' and then it was a lot of weird sounds while I tried to elaborate. But I think the gist of the answer is "no." So while I think "someone" might agree with you here, it wouldn't be this particular someone.
Facetiously asking the wrong question is cute, but misses the point.
Why don’t you ask him/her if it’s better to have his customers using and thinking about his/her product or something else? I’m pretty sure the answer isn’t “something else.”
Someone seems to think he is competing for “share of mind,” and that having more “share of mind” will translate into more “share of wallet.” I don’t think that’s a tricky thing to understand.
Dr. Zola
I would agree that's the wrong question, that's the point. Quoting someone that says words to the effect of "my customer's time is valuable" to support the notion that things like calendar rewards are in some way compensating for login time is totally wrong.
I don't disagree with the CEO's words. I disagree with attempting to use those words to mean anything except what they mean. The value of a customer's time is, at least for a company like Kabam, that you're competing for mindshare. The customer's time is valuable to *them*, and you're trying to get them to spend it on *you*. But the customer's time is not valuable in the sense that you owe them something for their time. That's completely different.
If you want to use the quote to support the notion that MCOC should be as entertaining as possible, you'll get no argument from me. If you try to use it to argue against the notion that the company doesn't specifically owe customers any compensation for the time they spend, that's when I'll point out that's completely ridiculous.
I consider my customer's time value, in the sense that I don't want to waste it. But the time they spend on the business activities they buy from me as a customer is not time that they deserve any compensation for. They pay for my time. I don't pay for theirs.
This strict interpretation is what I would expect from certain business perspectives: “But the customer's time is not valuable in the sense that you owe them something for their time.”
I don’t know your particular product offerings, and I wouldn’t assume to know your business. But someone competing for attention rather than selling a discrete product might beg to differ.
Just completed 3 first quests of chapter 1. And after thinking about it, I feel it's a fun content. The new nodes are fun, a little bit irritating, but interesting at the same time. Didn't felt that no 4* allowed was that much of a pain, but I didnt completed it fully yet, so maybe my opinion will change. But what are your opinions?
Straight from the kabams ceo mouth, so you tell me who’s lying @Kabam Miike him, or are you guys lying to him on wtf y’all are doing
🤔🤔🤔
@Busa_6 Off topic, but you’re now the point man to post that pic of the Kabam CEO interview every time someone says logging in for the calendar is just a big nothing. He thinks our time is worth something even if his customers don’t.
Dr. Zola
That's twisting people's words. I think my customers' time is valuable, but I also don't pay them anything for it. If a customer of mine said they read an interview where I said my customer's time was valuable, so they demanded I compensate them for it, I'd kick them out of my office with my actual feet.
Obviously, I disagree that it twists anything, and I think someone who views one minute of his customers’ time as vitally important disagrees with you as well.
But I give you points for your most succinct post in ages.
Dr. Zola
Fortunately for me, I can literally turn to another business owner visiting me right now and ask the two part question: do you think your customers' time is valuable, and do you think they deserve to be compensated for any time they spend during your interactions.
The answer to the first question is yes. I can't transcribe the entire answer to the second question. It started with "say what?' and then it was a lot of weird sounds while I tried to elaborate. But I think the gist of the answer is "no." So while I think "someone" might agree with you here, it wouldn't be this particular someone.
Facetiously asking the wrong question is cute, but misses the point.
Why don’t you ask him/her if it’s better to have his customers using and thinking about his/her product or something else? I’m pretty sure the answer isn’t “something else.”
Someone seems to think he is competing for “share of mind,” and that having more “share of mind” will translate into more “share of wallet.” I don’t think that’s a tricky thing to understand.
Dr. Zola
I would agree that's the wrong question, that's the point. Quoting someone that says words to the effect of "my customer's time is valuable" to support the notion that things like calendar rewards are in some way compensating for login time is totally wrong.
I don't disagree with the CEO's words. I disagree with attempting to use those words to mean anything except what they mean. The value of a customer's time is, at least for a company like Kabam, that you're competing for mindshare. The customer's time is valuable to *them*, and you're trying to get them to spend it on *you*. But the customer's time is not valuable in the sense that you owe them something for their time. That's completely different.
If you want to use the quote to support the notion that MCOC should be as entertaining as possible, you'll get no argument from me. If you try to use it to argue against the notion that the company doesn't specifically owe customers any compensation for the time they spend, that's when I'll point out that's completely ridiculous.
I consider my customer's time value, in the sense that I don't want to waste it. But the time they spend on the business activities they buy from me as a customer is not time that they deserve any compensation for. They pay for my time. I don't pay for theirs.
This strict interpretation is what I would expect from certain business perspectives: “But the customer's time is not valuable in the sense that you owe them something for their time.”
It is a strict interpretation, only insofar as it is limited to all the industries I'm aware of on Earth. In particular, it applies to the games industry where in spite of your attempts to show otherwise, game companies do not in general believe they owe material compensation to game players for their time. They owe them a game for their time, something the CEO you reference explicitly emphasizes.
Comments
Every great 4* (other than witch, thor, wolverine) is available as a 5*/6*.
They are not trying to tailor gameplay experiences to give you unique challenges. Variant did an okay job with that. You had to break up your trinities and synergies and deal with enemies head to head. But you could bring a 2*/3* of something to make a new helpful synergy or boost your stronger champs of a certain class.
This is just flat out an "have you opened enough crystals and/or gotten super lucky" gate. That's it.
Heimdall will still heal you, revive you. etc. Nick Fury will still give you attack. Trinities will still synergies.. All on the condition you have them at 5* or higher, which can be an expensive, if not impossible task for players.
I'd much rather see synergy suppression and allow all champs in. This would truly make it a skill based challenge, not a 'did you get ghost wasp antman hood or blade spark g' in the highest rarity' challenge.
But this is going live and people are going to either deal with it or not. I suspect many will, and many will not..
Or is there a limit on the amount we can get on each quest?
No, they used their own Rosters, and were from a variety of different progression levels, though we did ensure that they had been able to complete Act 5 and had a decent size of Roster for 5 and 6-Star Champions.
Also, let's keep name calling out of this.
As Miike mentioned, us beta testers weren’t given rosters. We used our existing rosters to clear the act. Most of the BS were removed making it significantly easy, esp for 6.1.1. 😂
I saw some live streams and yea, the addition of the timer to No Retreat made 6.1.1 very much easier.
Crossbones is still a pain to fight though. 😂
I don't disagree with the CEO's words. I disagree with attempting to use those words to mean anything except what they mean. The value of a customer's time is, at least for a company like Kabam, that you're competing for mindshare. The customer's time is valuable to *them*, and you're trying to get them to spend it on *you*. But the customer's time is not valuable in the sense that you owe them something for their time. That's completely different.
If you want to use the quote to support the notion that MCOC should be as entertaining as possible, you'll get no argument from me. If you try to use it to argue against the notion that the company doesn't specifically owe customers any compensation for the time they spend, that's when I'll point out that's completely ridiculous.
I consider my customer's time value, in the sense that I don't want to waste it. But the time they spend on the business activities they buy from me as a customer is not time that they deserve any compensation for. They pay for my time. I don't pay for theirs.
How is it a contradiction to say that I cannot know, for any particular person, whether content will be difficult, but I can know with reasonable certainty that the content will be difficult for a large number of players. We already *know* with absolute certainty that Uncollected is "difficult" for most players because most players cannot even *become* Uncollected: that level of difficulty is either too difficult to do directly or too difficult to even do the earlier prerequisite content for. If you want to debate the notion that technically we don't have the numbers to prove that, say, more than 50% of the player population isn't already Uncollected, go find someone else to debate that.
I don’t know your particular product offerings, and I wouldn’t assume to know your business. But someone competing for attention rather than selling a discrete product might beg to differ.
Dr. Zola