**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.
Options
Comments
Using my list or your list vs the most popular one available won't result in players agreeing with the results more, will it?
I think it works as a visual representation of my player experience, but I don't take it as an exact science.
I value champions based on my own player experience. My fighting style. My roster needs. My next goal in the game. Who I have fun using.
Seatin's tier list is a tool imo. While I might disagree with 25% of his placement, I'm glad its there.
Thanks @KDoggg2017 i couldn't have put it better myself
But the flip side is we've gone from targeting Blade and Iceman, to targeting maybe a set of fifteen or twenty champs we might need from a group of thirty to fifty in our arsenal to forge through Act 6 and higher content, at least for most players that can't just Quake themselves through it. Even Ghost nominally requires synergy partners for most players, or the skill level required jumps dramatically. The list of champions that I've used to work through Act 6, such that I wouldn't want to have done it without them, is pretty long. iceman was my only really good option for Crossbones at that time. I used the Rulk+Heimdall+Hela combo for Sinister. I used SS+CapIW for the Champion. Venom has been getting me past things like Havok and Spider-people. I've been getting by on a lot of theorycrafting which would be impossible without a very deep bench.
I will admit I was thinking about this problem from a kind of opposite side. But I'll save that for a different thread, rather than detract from this one.
The highest meta crystal that you opened approximately once per month used to give a 20% chance at a highly desirable outcome. Now to have the specific champ you need to match the t5cc you have or overcome one of many specific lanes in act 6 is closer to 0.8% per crystal for what you truly desire since likely you aren't looking for a pool of generally "good" chaps but rather 1-2 very specific ones
#swingandamiss
Point 1: Over time the pool of generally agreed upon "highly desirable" champions has narrowed somewhat in the highest tier generic crystal at that moment in time (i.e in 2015 this was a 4* crystal, today this is a 6* crystal). This took a sudden dip around the time of the 12.0 update, but this effect has largely stabilized in the past 2 years, particularly due to the high general grade of champions released in 2019.
Point 2: Although the general pool of highly desirable champions in any general crystal is largely stable, the chances of getting any single one champion continues to decline as more champions are added
Point 3: As end game rank-up materials (specifically tier 5 class catalyst) have become random and RNG-based and as end-game content has become increasingly reliant on not just having one of a pool of champions, but a very narrow range of exact champions, not to mention the need for specific champions to maintain competitive prestige the effective chances of getting a "useful" pull from any given generic crystal have fallen dramatically:
When paired with other factors such as roster bloat and also needing not just one specific champ but several specific champs (and thus needing multiple "specific" pulls rather than just one), the psychological effect is that there is a dramatic increase in crystal pulls that are undesirable.
I'm hoping that there might be some discussion on some meaningful and reasonable solutions that Kabam could put in place to counteract these factors and I welcome some constructive discussion toward this end! Looking forward to hearing some people smarter than me suggest some good ways to constructively use these data.
My assessment that most of the champs are 2nd class isn't biased or prejudiced. I have eyes, play the game, I've used every single champ I've gotten, and I don't have any interest in holding great champs down or propping up champs that suck. I can acknowledge that a champ sucks while enjoying their use and grudgingly use champs I don't like that are the best for a given bit of content. A dispassionate assessment takes what's given and shouldn't try to gin up arbitrary foolishness to manufacture a ranking win or loss for every champ.
1) Provide more opportunities to free to play players for specific champs at certainly the 5* and additionally the 6* level that have a 15% chance or higher to obtain a very specific needed champion. This would put things on par with the RNG feel of previous years. Even dungeon crystals presently have only a 10% chance for a specific champion. Personally I would love rare opportunities that guarantee a specific champ (maybe once or twice a year?). Increasing the number of incursion artifacts for higher level players and removing purchase caps might accomplish something similar.
2) Adjust the need for specific counters in act 6 so that a wider range of champions become desirable to use (and consequently pull from crystals again). This solution would unfortunately not solve the issue of boring pulls for those who spend/grind extensively and have very broad rosters but would reduce psychological pressure on a wide range of players.
3) Dramatically increase the frequency of champion overhauls so that more older champions gain utility that is useful in the end game and become highly desirable to pull again. The buffs to she hulk, spidergwen, venom, luke cage and red hulk are all partially responsible for the slight uptick in crystal value that occurred at the end of 2018 and carried into 2019. I think this option might be the most exciting overall for the player base in my opinion.