Witness the Great Revival! Act 6 Chapter 1 - Coming March 13th

1676870727378

Comments

  • xNigxNig Posts: 5,294 ★★★★★
    redm4n said:

    xNig thanks for confirming

    Welcome.

    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. 😂
  • ScottryanScottryan Posts: 367
    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
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 11,225 Guardian
    DrZola said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DrZola said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DrZola said:

    Busa_6 said:




    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.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 11,225 Guardian
    Bidzy7 said:

    If i have misunderstood or misread what you have put in your post, then please elaborate and point me in the right direction.

    Sure. You said this:
    Bidzy7 said:

    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 ?

    But you actually quoted this:
    DNA3000 said:

    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.
    Bidzy7 said:

    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.
    Bidzy7 said:

    DNA3000 said:


    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.
  • Kobster84Kobster84 Posts: 2,898 ★★★★★
    I’ve just started had very little trouble until I came to the 6:1:2 boss and realized I have 0 5* counters
  • BowTieJohnBowTieJohn Posts: 1,310 ★★★

    We're only 34 minutes away, but if you haven't already seen it, Dragonfei and Royal wrote up an in depth list of Champions and Nodes that you can expect to see in Act 6 Ch1 Quest 1! Check it out here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQixOYjMC7uwc_r33lfXG7T9eWiJIIy83EelFGcT4Zg/edit?usp=sharing

    Thank you!
  • BowTieJohnBowTieJohn Posts: 1,310 ★★★

    MattMan said:

    Drat32 said:

    @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

    MattMan said:

    Drat32 said:

    @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.
  • DrZolaDrZola Posts: 3,671 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    DrZola said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DrZola said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DrZola said:

    Busa_6 said:




    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.

    Dr. Zola
  • rk9HULK_rk9HULK_ Posts: 24
    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?
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 11,225 Guardian
    DrZola said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DrZola said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DrZola said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DrZola said:

    Busa_6 said:




    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.
  • Bidzy7Bidzy7 Posts: 312 ★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Bidzy7 said:

    If i have misunderstood or misread what you have put in your post, then please elaborate and point me in the right direction.

    Sure. You said this:
    Bidzy7 said:

    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 ?

    But you actually quoted this:
    DNA3000 said:

    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.
    Bidzy7 said:

    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.
    Bidzy7 said:

    DNA3000 said:


    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.

    The thing you have bolded refers to skill and is not specific to 4* champions. If you are not skilled enough then you use a better often stronger choice of champion.
    Your second point also states the content being too strong for their rosters. i.e. their champions aren't strong enough to take on the content.

    We know Act 6 has more difficulty, that's a given. My argument isn't to do with it not being difficult but the so called frustrations we are being saved from by restricting 4* are not specific to only 4* and the only reason you would get frustrated by using a 4* is because they are not strong enough for the content. Hence why i listed as many reasons as i could think of at the time of what people find frustrating.

    If anything this restriction has caused more frustration then any that would of been bought about by using 4* in Act 6, which you can see from the majority of the negativity from the announcement.

    The contradiction lies in the fact you are saying its impractical to stop people from attempting difficult content because you don't know if they are capable of doing it. Then you say Kabam doing the same thing by restricting 4* is ok.


    All this mention of people having problems with UC EQ etc are kinda irrelevant as i'm pretty sure those are not in a position to take on Act 6 anyway. Anyone who has 100% Act 5 doesn't have a problem with the the monthly EQ and its pretty routine.


    Being on the beta test , did you not see the potential for using 4* for certain match ups ? or was your roster able to effectively handle all the nodes and matchups ?



  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 11,225 Guardian
    Bidzy7 said:

    The thing you have bolded refers to skill and is not specific to 4* champions. If you are not skilled enough then you use a better often stronger choice of champion.

    I'm not sure how to even respond to this. You keep saying the only possible reason why players might get frustrated using 4* champs is because the 4* champs themselves are too weak. I keep saying that's not true, that the problem isn't with the 4* champs, it is that different players themselves might not be able to complete the content with 4* champs and that could lead to frustration for some players. And when I specifically point to the quote that says "it isn't about 4* champs, it is about the players" you tell me that what I pointed out is about skill and not about 4* champs.

    Right. Exactly right.
    Bidzy7 said:

    Being on the beta test , did you not see the potential for using 4* for certain match ups ? or was your roster able to effectively handle all the nodes and matchups ?

    My feedback relevant to this issue was that I was fine with the limitation personally, because to me a limitation is just something to work towards overcoming whether I could do it or not. But I thought it would be a controversial limitation, and it had a possibly unintended side effect regarding synergies.

    On the subject of whether I could do the content reasonably or not, I thought it was just barely within my limits to attempt, but I ran into a bug that limited the amount I could test. Even with that limitation, I was able to reach almost every boss on every map through what I thought was the easiest path, and I was able to bring them down on two of the maps.

    FYI, the limitation I ran into was that I couldn't really use a lot of potions. You were supposed to be able to buy potions specifically for use in the test, but something caused my game to stop selling them to me, so I had to test much of Act 6 in hardcore mode.

    I am far from the best player in the world, but I suspect my roster is better than average, even among higher tier players with the skill to attempt Act 6. Again, not the best, but certainly not bad. But I would consider myself a roster-building focused player.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 11,225 Guardian
    Bidzy7 said:

    The contradiction lies in the fact you are saying its impractical to stop people from attempting difficult content because you don't know if they are capable of doing it. Then you say Kabam doing the same thing by restricting 4* is ok.

    I never said that, or anything like that. I said that when you allow players to attempt content without restrictions, some of them will attempt it and fail and get frustrated. Some of that is inevitable, but when it rises to certain extreme levels it is a legitimate motive to reduce the scope of that problem by placing restrictions on who can do the content. That's a general principle not specific to Act 6. Anyone arguing the general point that such restrictions are always wrong because players should be allowed attempt anything they want, and be free to succeed or fail, is ignoring the problem of managing frustration in an online game and I would disagree with that notion in principle.

    Beyond that, I said that restricting rosters in the way that Kabam is doing isn't unreasonable for a long list of reasons not worth repeating here, but that I don't think it is the optimal way to do that. Which means I wouldn't do it myself, but I don't think it's a completely awful idea either. There's what I would do, there's what I would find completely unacceptable, and there's the vast majority of possibilities that lie in the middle. The Act 6 restriction falls in the middle for me.

  • Dwhalen8554Dwhalen8554 Posts: 153 ★★
    I really could have used my synergies today with act 6 being released. I still plan on not dropping a dime until this is fixed. Please listen to your player base
  • Kobster84Kobster84 Posts: 2,898 ★★★★★

    Kobster84 said:

    Kobster84 said:

    TheKiryu said:

    Ok so.

    Just quickly popping in here to share a few things.

    1- 4* ban is cheap and nasty as hell, a sleazy back handed slap in the face of we’ll all summoners not just the mid tier players.
    2 - nodes you have showed to be in act 6 so far are fairly specific and less we forget there are path nodes + global + many of newer champions require specific matchups - that filters out 95%+ champions in game - like let’s say caustic temper - need poision immune with fury - realistically people only have ranked up medusa and or hype or
    Maybe ghost that can deal with that - narrowing it down to 3-4 champions in game that are not absolute trash for all other scenarios - it is stupid as hell if only 5* or 6* are allowed as statistically it is likely many summoners don’t have any of those.
    3 - preview of 1.1 means absolutely squat when it comes to rest of the content (can’t compare 5.2.1 to 5.2.6 in difficulty)


    On my channel I posted few ideas how to rectify this for Kabam,

    Main one - release in game * boost* that increases 4* champion level by 1 for set amount of time - sprinkle them throughout 6.1 and perhaps store (for some gold and with daily limit )

    And this whole issue goes away - 4* still banned but if we really need some utility of synergy champions we have acces to them.

    End of story.


    Laters

    1. It's not a slap in the face to all Summoners. It's a degree of challenge, one that shouldn't even pertain to mid-level Players yet. It affects everyone who hasn't done it, of course. Everyone is free to discuss it. However, it's certainly not a slap in the face to them. Quite contrary. They're getting a head start before they get there.
    2. There are most likely a number of options, which is one of the purposes of releasing content to the CCs, so they can explore it and share their ideas and thoughts on how to get through it. It may however, require people to explore Champs not commonly used. That's not a bad thing. It's very limiting to play one way ad infinitum.
    3. It pertains to 6.1. The rest of the Chapter is nowhere near ready to be released.
    Just saying some of the fights definitely require specific counters such as a cable fight in 6:1:1
    Kobster84 said:

    TheKiryu said:

    Ok so.

    Just quickly popping in here to share a few things.

    1- 4* ban is cheap and nasty as hell, a sleazy back handed slap in the face of we’ll all summoners not just the mid tier players.
    2 - nodes you have showed to be in act 6 so far are fairly specific and less we forget there are path nodes + global + many of newer champions require specific matchups - that filters out 95%+ champions in game - like let’s say caustic temper - need poision immune with fury - realistically people only have ranked up medusa and or hype or
    Maybe ghost that can deal with that - narrowing it down to 3-4 champions in game that are not absolute trash for all other scenarios - it is stupid as hell if only 5* or 6* are allowed as statistically it is likely many summoners don’t have any of those.
    3 - preview of 1.1 means absolutely squat when it comes to rest of the content (can’t compare 5.2.1 to 5.2.6 in difficulty)


    On my channel I posted few ideas how to rectify this for Kabam,

    Main one - release in game * boost* that increases 4* champion level by 1 for set amount of time - sprinkle them throughout 6.1 and perhaps store (for some gold and with daily limit )

    And this whole issue goes away - 4* still banned but if we really need some utility of synergy champions we have acces to them.

    End of story.


    Laters

    1. It's not a slap in the face to all Summoners. It's a degree of challenge, one that shouldn't even pertain to mid-level Players yet. It affects everyone who hasn't done it, of course. Everyone is free to discuss it. However, it's certainly not a slap in the face to them. Quite contrary. They're getting a head start before they get there.
    2. There are most likely a number of options, which is one of the purposes of releasing content to the CCs, so they can explore it and share their ideas and thoughts on how to get through it. It may however, require people to explore Champs not commonly used. That's not a bad thing. It's very limiting to play one way ad infinitum.
    3. It pertains to 6.1. The rest of the Chapter is nowhere near ready to be released.
    Just saying some of the fights definitely require specific counters such as a cable fight in 6:1:1
    Kobster84 said:

    TheKiryu said:

    Ok so.

    Just quickly popping in here to share a few things.

    1- 4* ban is cheap and nasty as hell, a sleazy back handed slap in the face of we’ll all summoners not just the mid tier players.
    2 - nodes you have showed to be in act 6 so far are fairly specific and less we forget there are path nodes + global + many of newer champions require specific matchups - that filters out 95%+ champions in game - like let’s say caustic temper - need poision immune with fury - realistically people only have ranked up medusa and or hype or
    Maybe ghost that can deal with that - narrowing it down to 3-4 champions in game that are not absolute trash for all other scenarios - it is stupid as hell if only 5* or 6* are allowed as statistically it is likely many summoners don’t have any of those.
    3 - preview of 1.1 means absolutely squat when it comes to rest of the content (can’t compare 5.2.1 to 5.2.6 in difficulty)


    On my channel I posted few ideas how to rectify this for Kabam,

    Main one - release in game * boost* that increases 4* champion level by 1 for set amount of time - sprinkle them throughout 6.1 and perhaps store (for some gold and with daily limit )

    And this whole issue goes away - 4* still banned but if we really need some utility of synergy champions we have acces to them.

    End of story.


    Laters

    1. It's not a slap in the face to all Summoners. It's a degree of challenge, one that shouldn't even pertain to mid-level Players yet. It affects everyone who hasn't done it, of course. Everyone is free to discuss it. However, it's certainly not a slap in the face to them. Quite contrary. They're getting a head start before they get there.
    2. There are most likely a number of options, which is one of the purposes of releasing content to the CCs, so they can explore it and share their ideas and thoughts on how to get through it. It may however, require people to explore Champs not commonly used. That's not a bad thing. It's very limiting to play one way ad infinitum.
    3. It pertains to 6.1. The rest of the Chapter is nowhere near ready to be released.
    Just saying some of the fights definitely require specific counters such as a cable fight in 6:1:1
    There are BEST options, that's pretty much the same as any content. There are always other options.
    Not really the cable has a very specific nodes that if you don’t have vision or magik it’s going to be a horrible fight
    So Power Control? There's more than two, isn't there?
    It requires the best power controllers as eventually the other ones won’t be able to keep up

    Kobster84 said:


    Not really the cable has a very specific nodes that if you don’t have vision or magik it’s going to be a horrible fight

    Based on the Reddit writeup Dormamu will be best for that fight. Magik may be the next best option. Other options include:

    Vision (like you said)
    Quake (high block damage but possible at r4+)
    Psylocke (sp1 draining to 0 power prevents all power gain)
    Modok (sp1 reverses power gain buffs)
    Luke Cage (same as MODOK with 4+ exhaustion debuffs + invulnerability when duped)
    Void (petrify debuffs when power gain buffs are active)
    Duped Cap IW w/tech champ (same as Void)
    Ghost w/Hood synergy (phase during sp3)
    Doctor Octopus (power lock)
    Doctor Voodoo (sp2 power burn prevents sp3)
    Spider-Man Stark Enhanced (heavy attack power drain)
    Spider-Gwen (sp1 enervate)

    The Extinction Protocol node was introduced in Variant with 3.2 Ultron's boss. I remember that fight's power gain not being as bad as I'd expected. Cable's power gain buff makes that node more difficult, a handful of the above champions should still be able to solo that fight without boosts.
    It’s not a power gain buff so void like cage and modok are all instantly removed as options same with cap iw doctor voodoo would work for the first but if the fight but it’d eventually not work spidergwen could work but don’t forget she only enervates blocks still give him power and his power gain buffs and pyslock

    Kobster84 said:



    It’s not a power gain buff so void like cage and modok are all instantly removed as options same with cap iw doctor voodoo would work for the first but if the fight but it’d eventually not work spidergwen could work but don’t forget she only enervates blocks still give him power and his power gain buffs and pyslocke wouldn’t work well

    @Kobster84 You overlooked my response to @Drooped2's comment. Duped Cable has a % chance to gain an active power gain buff each time he fills a bar of power. Void Luke Cage MODOK and Cap IW are able to reverse active power gain buffs, so power gain buffs with increased power gain rate would mean increased power lost. Power gain rate is less of a factor for Doctor Voodoo's power burn as long as power burn drains any power, 100% power minus any amount of power greater than 0% means sp2 instead of sp3. Voodoo also has power drain to manage that Cable fight. Spider-Gwen might work for that fight if she can enervate after her sp1 and keep Cable cornered like Magik does to solo war bosses. Psylocke will work for that fight if she can drain Cable's power to 0 on her sp1, all that would take is baiting Cable's sp1 or sp2 early on when Cable doesn't have an active power gain buff.
    @DTMelodicMetal this cable has extinction protocol and kinetic transference 3 meaning block his sp1 will basically give him more power
  • MaatManMaatMan Posts: 958 ★★★
    Vincew80 said:

    Fast2 said:

    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.
    it was addded in the last update.
    it appears the first time you complete any story quest since the last update
    to show wat you are currently atr.
  • Bidzy7Bidzy7 Posts: 312 ★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Bidzy7 said:

    The thing you have bolded refers to skill and is not specific to 4* champions. If you are not skilled enough then you use a better often stronger choice of champion.

    I'm not sure how to even respond to this. You keep saying the only possible reason why players might get frustrated using 4* champs is because the 4* champs themselves are too weak. I keep saying that's not true, that the problem isn't with the 4* champs, it is that different players themselves might not be able to complete the content with 4* champs and that could lead to frustration for some players. And when I specifically point to the quote that says "it isn't about 4* champs, it is about the players" you tell me that what I pointed out is about skill and not about 4* champs.


    The whole discussion is centered around the ban on 4* and the reasoning behind it. Kabam's response was gating is used to to avoid a frustrating experience for the players. Another user had said this meant they were saying gating was done because 4* were perceived as too weak. You said this wasn't the case, which i challenged to say what other reason is there that is specific to 4* that would be inline with their statement on the restrictions ?

    If this still doesn't make sense, then no point going any further as we seem to be just going in circles and at the end of the day its not like its going to have any significant impact on anything.


    So wait did you get to test multiple maps ? I thought only 6.1.1 was tested.

    How does you roster look can i ask ? who are your top ranked champions ?








  • FrunzaiuteFrunzaiute Posts: 7


  • FrunzaiuteFrunzaiute Posts: 7
    I thought that act 6 should give you better rewards but...doing 1 run in act 5.4 has better rewards than 6.1 and come on its act 6 and with restrictions too
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 11,225 Guardian
    Bidzy7 said:

    How does you roster look can i ask ? who are your top ranked champions ?

    5/65: Void, Blade
    4/55: VIsion, Emma, Korg, Sparky, Archangel, Iceman, Magik
    3/45: Mordo, Guillotine, Voodoo, Goblin, Hyperion, King Groot, Nightcrawler, Angela, Hood, Drax, Captain Marvel, She-Hulk, Spider-Gwen, Star-Lord

    1/25 6*: Loki, Sabretooth, IMIW, Hulk Ragnarok, Sentry, Nebula, Captain America WWII
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 6,527 ★★★★★
    Bidzy7 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Bidzy7 said:

    The thing you have bolded refers to skill and is not specific to 4* champions. If you are not skilled enough then you use a better often stronger choice of champion.

    I'm not sure how to even respond to this. You keep saying the only possible reason why players might get frustrated using 4* champs is because the 4* champs themselves are too weak. I keep saying that's not true, that the problem isn't with the 4* champs, it is that different players themselves might not be able to complete the content with 4* champs and that could lead to frustration for some players. And when I specifically point to the quote that says "it isn't about 4* champs, it is about the players" you tell me that what I pointed out is about skill and not about 4* champs.


    The whole discussion is centered around the ban on 4* and the reasoning behind it. Kabam's response was gating is used to to avoid a frustrating experience for the players. Another user had said this meant they were saying gating was done because 4* were perceived as too weak. You said this wasn't the case, which i challenged to say what other reason is there that is specific to 4* that would be inline with their statement on the restrictions ?

    If this still doesn't make sense, then no point going any further as we seem to be just going in circles and at the end of the day its not like its going to have any significant impact on anything.


    So wait did you get to test multiple maps ? I thought only 6.1.1 was tested.

    How does you roster look can i ask ? who are your top ranked champions ?








    It wasn't that 4*s are too weak. It was that many players with less developed rosters who rely on 4*s won't be able to do it and it could be a very frustrating experience for them. Blocking 4*s was a way of keeping out players more likely to be in the frustrated category.
  • redm4nredm4n Posts: 48
    Let the player choose if it is more then they want to handle, stop taking the choice away from them and force them behind a wall of RNG.
  • Bidzy7Bidzy7 Posts: 312 ★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Bidzy7 said:

    How does you roster look can i ask ? who are your top ranked champions ?

    5/65: Void, Blade
    4/55: VIsion, Emma, Korg, Sparky, Archangel, Iceman, Magik
    3/45: Mordo, Guillotine, Voodoo, Goblin, Hyperion, King Groot, Nightcrawler, Angela, Hood, Drax, Captain Marvel, She-Hulk, Spider-Gwen, Star-Lord

    1/25 6*: Loki, Sabretooth, IMIW, Hulk Ragnarok, Sentry, Nebula, Captain America WWII
    well dam that is a stacked roster. You pretty much cover most scenarios. are you f2p ?

    Have you done all the content in the game like LOL and variant ?

    A bit surprising you only have 2 5/65 , i'm assuming you are saving up to rank someone you feel worthy
  • Bidzy7Bidzy7 Posts: 312 ★★★

    Bidzy7 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Bidzy7 said:

    The thing you have bolded refers to skill and is not specific to 4* champions. If you are not skilled enough then you use a better often stronger choice of champion.

    I'm not sure how to even respond to this. You keep saying the only possible reason why players might get frustrated using 4* champs is because the 4* champs themselves are too weak. I keep saying that's not true, that the problem isn't with the 4* champs, it is that different players themselves might not be able to complete the content with 4* champs and that could lead to frustration for some players. And when I specifically point to the quote that says "it isn't about 4* champs, it is about the players" you tell me that what I pointed out is about skill and not about 4* champs.


    The whole discussion is centered around the ban on 4* and the reasoning behind it. Kabam's response was gating is used to to avoid a frustrating experience for the players. Another user had said this meant they were saying gating was done because 4* were perceived as too weak. You said this wasn't the case, which i challenged to say what other reason is there that is specific to 4* that would be inline with their statement on the restrictions ?

    If this still doesn't make sense, then no point going any further as we seem to be just going in circles and at the end of the day its not like its going to have any significant impact on anything.


    So wait did you get to test multiple maps ? I thought only 6.1.1 was tested.

    How does you roster look can i ask ? who are your top ranked champions ?








    It wasn't that 4*s are too weak. It was that many players with less developed rosters who rely on 4*s won't be able to do it and it could be a very frustrating experience for them. Blocking 4*s was a way of keeping out players more likely to be in the frustrated category.

    This is what makes it seem like a pay to play wall, because if you are in a position where you can't buy crystals and get bad luck then you got no alternative apart from grinding away, getting your 2 5* a month and praying for good luck or buying more crystals.
  • LeNoirFaineantLeNoirFaineant Posts: 6,527 ★★★★★
    Bidzy7 said:

    Bidzy7 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Bidzy7 said:

    The thing you have bolded refers to skill and is not specific to 4* champions. If you are not skilled enough then you use a better often stronger choice of champion.

    I'm not sure how to even respond to this. You keep saying the only possible reason why players might get frustrated using 4* champs is because the 4* champs themselves are too weak. I keep saying that's not true, that the problem isn't with the 4* champs, it is that different players themselves might not be able to complete the content with 4* champs and that could lead to frustration for some players. And when I specifically point to the quote that says "it isn't about 4* champs, it is about the players" you tell me that what I pointed out is about skill and not about 4* champs.


    The whole discussion is centered around the ban on 4* and the reasoning behind it. Kabam's response was gating is used to to avoid a frustrating experience for the players. Another user had said this meant they were saying gating was done because 4* were perceived as too weak. You said this wasn't the case, which i challenged to say what other reason is there that is specific to 4* that would be inline with their statement on the restrictions ?

    If this still doesn't make sense, then no point going any further as we seem to be just going in circles and at the end of the day its not like its going to have any significant impact on anything.


    So wait did you get to test multiple maps ? I thought only 6.1.1 was tested.

    How does you roster look can i ask ? who are your top ranked champions ?








    It wasn't that 4*s are too weak. It was that many players with less developed rosters who rely on 4*s won't be able to do it and it could be a very frustrating experience for them. Blocking 4*s was a way of keeping out players more likely to be in the frustrated category.

    This is what makes it seem like a pay to play wall, because if you are in a position where you can't buy crystals and get bad luck then you got no alternative apart from grinding away, getting your 2 5* a month and praying for good luck or buying more crystals.
    I don't think it was intended to be a pay to play wall, but it does screw people with bad RNG and it certainly is a massive advantage for people who spend a ton on FGM and get every new champ. I don't spend and I have the roster for it, so it doesn't really hurt me. I wish they had been more creative and found a way to block people who shouldn't be doing it while not making it more expensive for people who should but don't have 5* versions of synergy champs that won't be used to fight anyway.
  • mum_m2mum_m2 Posts: 1,774 ★★★★
    Once I saw how easy it was it really is an over reaction I think. There's one fight that's super hard and the rest is extremely manageable
  • DarthHaasDarthHaas Posts: 363
    finished (completion) with a couple boosts, a couple energy refills, and 12 single revives
    Domino 6* rank 2
    CapIW 5/65
    Sentinel 4/55
    Sparky 4/55
    Gulk 6* rank 1

    Deffinetly not that bad of content. I will say I will have to expand my roster a bit before I go for exploration.
Sign In or Register to comment.