ARE YOU OK WITH NEW ACT 6 REQUIREMENT?

Mike12867

Unknown

This content has been removed.

B_Dizzle_01

NO

Lame. The game has shifted towards synergy teams. Now you take that away. Money grab. Terrible choice.

JChanceH9

NO

I’m okay with the idea of champion requirements, and I personally have the 5* and 6* roster for this not to affect me, but I do sympathize with the people who rely on 4*s for certain utilities and synergies.

Cutless_X

NO

I still use 4*s for utility when i don't have that champ as a 5*

RawInstinct

NO

No but whatever they will do what they want it’s up to you whether you want to continue to play and poor time and money into the game

solmyrair

NO

My 5* roster is not good enough. Most of 4* would go though the chapter much easier.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Jass007

NO

Absolutely ridiculous banning the four stars ..

axelelf_1

YES

Didn't mean to vote yes. It's effing stupid to ban 4*s. Been praying for a killmonger since summer to complete my unholy trinity and pulled his 4* two weeks ago. Was thrilled. Now, not so much. Plus, I ranked up my 4* dupes over my 5* undupes (if I didn't plan on taking them past r3) because I never imagined something this stupid would happen.

At least I won't be wasting any resources on 4*s anymore. I used to rank them up but now, there's no use for them. Not very smart, kabam.

Maldroit2

YES

I'm sorry, but I don't really mind it. I think the requirement makes act 6 difficult. I kind of like that difficulty spike, although I can Cleary why people hate it so much.

Iksdjvan

NO

Disgusting act on kabams part. People would be more comfortable if you would just come out and say " we have to do this to keep the game viable". Instead of lying to us.

Mike12867

NO

UmbertoDelRio said:

I can totally see how not having 4* champs for synergies seems like a big deal.
But have you guys even considered that we don't even know the difficulty yet? It is extremely possible that you simply won't get that far with for example just an r5 domino with a low level synergie team.

We can absolutely assume that the difficulty will be much higher than act 5, maybe somewhere around variant, maybe even above that.
Maybe we should wait to see whether 4* champs would even be a good idea to begin with?
Until the content is released and shown to be not that bad for for example a low level r5 domino team, calling it a cashgrab or anything like that is simply intellectually dishonest.
Don't be intellectually dishonest.

Cool, good to know you may prefer using an unduped 3/45 archangel over max sig 5/50 one or a sig 20 OGV 3/45 over sig 99 5/50 one or even unudped 4/55 omega over max sig one as 4*

Lets face it, its not only for synergies, its for sig ability and utility as well that they may provide better than the 5* counterpart

peasant

NO

There was no warning. People have ranked up 16+ 4* duel to synergy/gaps in their roster.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

gannicus0830

NO

Not just no, but hell no. I don't have time to type out a long explanation, but proff Hoff does a good job in this video of objectively explaining why this was a **** move on kabam's part.
https://youtu.be/dGAg0F-Zvuk

Demonzfyre

gannicus0830 said:

Not just no, but hell no. I don't have time to type out a long explanation, but proff Hoff does a good job in this video of objectively explaining why this was a **** move on kabam's part.
https://youtu.be/dGAg0F-Zvuk

Prof Hof never does a good job in his videos.

-sixate-

YES

I'm fine with it, I almost never use 4* anyway

gannicus0830

NO

Demonzfyre said:

gannicus0830 said:

Not just no, but hell no. I don't have time to type out a long explanation, but proff Hoff does a good job in this video of objectively explaining why this was a **** move on kabam's part.
https://youtu.be/dGAg0F-Zvuk

Prof Hof never does a good job in his videos.

You're entitled to your opinion. I personally don't find his videos very entertaining, but in this particular case he did a good job with his assessment, and I completely agree with him.

axelelf_1

YES

-sixate- said:

I'm fine with it, I almost never use 4* anyway

I don’t get the uproar with homeless people, I have a home.

ThatGrootGroot

NO

gannicus0830 said:

Not just no, but hell no. I don't have time to type out a long explanation, but proff Hoff does a good job in this video of objectively explaining why this was a **** move on kabam's part.
https://youtu.be/dGAg0F-Zvuk

He's terrible.

ThatGrootGroot

NO

This was a bad, bad decision. With my roster, I can get by with 5* and 6* champs. I can't think of many 4* I'd use, with the exception of Masacre for synergy. I feel sorry for people who either have bad 5* champs or not many 5* champs and rely heavily on their 4* roster. Bad, terrible decision.

I have to say, it wasn't hard to see this coming. Kabam gave out a free 5* awakening gem earlier this year for nothing. That was a clear sign of more shift. They've also had more 5* shards in calendars, events and offers (see: $$$$). Another clear sign.

This was a bad decision. Ultimately, why would Kabam care? If people want to use 4* champs almost exclusively, they'll probably need to use more resources, but what should that matter?

Brew_Swayne

NO

I don't mind if Kabam implements champion requirements. The (recurring) problem with kabam is that they throw very significant changes out there with very little warning. Just like they did with 12.0 and the Nerfpocalypse.

Kabam absolutely could have and should have alerted the players that Act 6 was going to be restricted to 5*/6* champs well in advance so that players could decide for themselves if they wanted to keep investing resources in specific 4* champs or investing time into grinding arena for specific 4* champs. Instead they just let everyone keep on doing what they've been doing and spending time and money on champs that have no future in the game.

HA_GongShowNicky_HA

NO

Maldroit2 said:

I'm sorry, but I don't really mind it. I think the requirement makes act 6 difficult. I kind of like that difficulty spike, although I can Cleary why people hate it so much.

Go ahead, keep thinking that's their reasoning behind it. And let's say it was, that they want a "difficulty spike" wouldn't it be much more difficult doing it with a 4* than a 5*? So that logic makes no sense

MaatMan

How many threads do we need on the same topic.,
everyone post in the same thread.
it is easier to follow discussion.

ThatGrootGroot

NO

MaatMan said:

How many threads do we need on the same topic.,
everyone post in the same thread.
it is easier to follow discussion.

At least this one is a Poll that quantifies votes.

BuckeyeKP

YES

It's meant as a gate to keep people in the game and progressing instead of just spending their way through it. They have done similar with other content, (aCT V highly prioritized certain classes, we had the 2* arena..) I mean you can't really use 3* in Variant realistically anyway, and can only use two classes which limits synergy and what capabilities you can bring. Funny no one seemed to have an issue with that.

MaatMan

ThatGrootGroot said:

MaatMan said:

How many threads do we need on the same topic.,
everyone post in the same thread.
it is easier to follow discussion.

At least this one is a Poll that quantifies votes.

how long before someone starts another...
5.....
4....
3....
lol..

Zardu_Hasseulfraü

NO

For synergy reasons alone there's no good reason for this requirement. I doubt 4*s would be viable to be all that effective in Act 6 but some of the best I am sure would have their uses. I've invested in Stark (5/65) and Blade (4/55) in ways I probably would not have without my 4* Ghost Rider....

HA_GongShowNicky_HA

NO

BuckeyeKP said:

It's meant as a gate to keep people in the game and progressing instead of just spending their way through it. They have done similar with other content, (aCT V highly prioritized certain classes, we had the 2* arena..) I mean you can't really use 3* in Variant realistically anyway, and can only use two classes which limits synergy and what capabilities you can bring. Funny no one seemed to have an issue with that.

Restricting content to specific classes is a cool idea and challenge, completely eliminating the ability to use all but 5 and 6* champions is a complete slap in the face to everyone who doesn't have a super stacked roster. You say this is intended to stop people paying their way through it, yet it only forces people to spend even more money since they now need those 5* champions