**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Comments
I've also said repeatedly that maybe people should just have a little patience and wait to see what they end up saying this month in relation to everything
I agree that people who complain about resources line gold, iso are not correct, they are available in arena if you are FTP or PTW. But, regarding difficulty of act 6, If you have completed it, good for you, saying that I was forced to go through that, everyone has to is not right. Or is it that you don't want anyone else to complete it?
If they do want to keep the same difficulty and type of fights, then would definitely be better to improve the ways to get champs.
The barrier to entry shouldn’t be your resources but rather roster depth and skill.
Another wonderful addition to the growing 6* roster
The only positive is you’ve only added 1 champ that’s completely worthless this time and 2 that are mostly useless.
There's always going to be a need for bad champs. They're put there to balance out the "good" champs.
about to open a crystal, because you could find an use to nearly any champion. 4* BW classic and nightcrawler helped me through act 4 and half act 5 before I got 5* Quake. Now I panic, specially when I open a 6 star one. So much effort for nothing.
I’ve never fell for a featured, It’s not worthy most of the time. I’m shock cyclops, magneto or jane foster are not this time on it.
If we want better dialog with the developers, it is important to remember that however justified you believe it to be, hyperbole is the enemy of conversation. There are a not insubstantial number of players who believe the point to having dialog with the developers is to ask them why they are so "anti-player." That's not the start of a conversation, that is the end of a conversation. Neither you nor I would tolerate someone who wanted to start a conversation with us that way, and neither will anyone else.
There's a lot of things they do right. There's a lot they do wrong. And I'll bet there's a lot of things *I* think they do right that you think is horrible and vice versa. The point to dialog is not to figure out who's right. The point is to expose all those points of view so everyone understands the challenges of trying to satisfy as many people as possible who all think the way forward is obvious, but obviously in completely different directions.
There's a lot of people who think that many of the Youtubers, especially those in the content creator program, are relatively soft on Kabam. I can't speak for them but I think the reason why that's sometimes true is that most of them understand what it is like to try to consistently satisfy an audience of diverse people, and what it is like to be the target of hyperbolic criticism. When we say Kabam is greedy or stupid or ignores us completely, I think many of them hear echoes of people saying they are shills, or only in it for views, or professional game players that don't understand normal players. We often don't treat them like normal people doing the best they can as they see it. And that makes it a little easier for them in turn to realize that whatever Kabam looks like from the outside, there's almost certainly some reasonable reason why normal people might appear to be doing nonsensical things when they aren't trying to be nonsensical.
Let me try this. There is no game design reason why there should be "stronger" or "weaker" champs per se. However, there *is* a very strong game design reason to ensure that for any one player, that one player *desires* some champs more than others. If they are all equally desirable, that's problematic, because psychologically valuation is relative. If they are all equally desirable, they will eventually all become equally undesirable. If the game was full of nothing but "god-tier" champs, those god-tier champs would all be meh in time.
Having said that, there's no game design reason why every single player should *agree* on the order of desirability, and that changes everything. If every champ had strong uses, but we all disagreed about which uses were ultimately more valuable, that would be perfectly fine. In fact, that should be the ultimate goal. Every player would have a priority of preference and wouldn't get bored with champions, but every champion would have its followers. But this is a tricky thing to achieve. We're still debating endlessly over which Starcraft race is the best, so it is an achievable goal in theory. But in practice, this takes very solid design fidelity.
A long time ago I used to play hex board games, and one of my favorites was a game called Ogre. Off and on, I've been studying this game for literally forty years. The fact that we're still arguing over which side has the advantage in *that* game is impressive. But also it is my go-to example whenever someone says that "balance is impossible." This game is one of the best teaching aids for what "balance" even is (it isn't synonymous with equality in any form) and how even the most asymmetrical game in existence can present a choice to players for which there is no correct choice and everyone disagrees over the best choice.
If the Ogre can be balanced against the army in terms of the meta game, then champions can be balanced in terms of different people choosing different champs as the best without any of them actually being the best.
Not saying it is easy, and I'm not even saying Kabam itself is capable of doing it. Only that it isn't impossible. And there's hints of it in the game. Killmonger is seen as fantastic by some, average by others. Crossbones is another such champion. It is possible to make champs that are impossible to say are "bad" but nevertheless polarize the players in terms of whether they are worth pursuing and investing in. That sort of thing is better than "good" and "bad" champs but produces similar psychological results.