**RESOLVED ISSUE WITH SIDE QUEST KEYS**
The game team has resolved this issue. Keys will be distributed via in-game messages and the quest timer will be extended.
More information and timeline here.
*This includes currently unclaimable keys as well*
**WINTER OF WOE - BONUS OBJECTIVE POINT**
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.

Champion Aquisition and Generic Crystal Value Over Time in MCOC

2

Comments

  • Cendar333Cendar333 Posts: 303
    And this sudden downturn in the RNG for "usefulness" alongside the exponential increase in difficulty is I think what is contributing so significantly to recent tensions @DNA3000
  • Cendar333Cendar333 Posts: 303
    @KDoggg2017 I think my most recent graph shows a little better what the chances are of a truly desired outcome for a champion to complete the end game content. The rate and severity of change just doesn't feel good as a player.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,097 ★★★★★
    The problem is, if you're only using Seatin's Tier List to define what's useful, that's limiting. Application also plays a factor, and that entirely depends on what you're working on. For people who have everything done, that definition narrows even more. Some of that is just a byproduct of doing everything there is to do.
  • Panchulon21Panchulon21 Posts: 2,605 ★★★★★
    Did you create a highly undesirable outcome? That one would trump all the other categories trifold lol
  • Panchulon21Panchulon21 Posts: 2,605 ★★★★★
    Lol I can’t use the word that is our POTUS last name even though I meant it as overtaking lol
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,097 ★★★★★

    The problem is, if you're only using Seatin's Tier List to define what's useful, that's limiting. Application also plays a factor, and that entirely depends on what you're working on. For people who have everything done, that definition narrows even more. Some of that is just a byproduct of doing everything there is to do.

    I'm not sure if there is a better suggestion. This exercise requires a list to be used.
    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.
    It's subjective. The God Tier List is one person's breakdown of Champs. It's an opinion piece that's become tenet for many people. So much so that they adhere to it strictly as a gauge on what's useful and what isn't. Overall usefulness takes in more information.
  • KDoggg2017KDoggg2017 Posts: 1,195 ★★★★

    The problem is, if you're only using Seatin's Tier List to define what's useful, that's limiting. Application also plays a factor, and that entirely depends on what you're working on. For people who have everything done, that definition narrows even more. Some of that is just a byproduct of doing everything there is to do.

    I'm not sure if there is a better suggestion. This exercise requires a list to be used.
    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.
    It's subjective. The God Tier List is one person's breakdown of Champs. It's an opinion piece that's become tenet for many people. So much so that they adhere to it strictly as a gauge on what's useful and what isn't. Overall usefulness takes in more information.
    I agree it is subjective.
    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.
  • TheInfintyTheInfinty Posts: 1,382 ★★★★
    Well the question of who is desirable is more or less comes down to the person. Some one could consider WW2 captain America a desirable champion and also consider some one like sabretooth undesirable. At the end of the day it comes down to the person just like tier lists champs most people consider undesirable others might find it desirable. So bottom line of what I’m trying to say is there is never going to be a champion everyone desires because people will always have different ideas on who is “desirable”
  • Cendar333Cendar333 Posts: 303

    The problem is, if you're only using Seatin's Tier List to define what's useful, that's limiting. Application also plays a factor, and that entirely depends on what you're working on. For people who have everything done, that definition narrows even more. Some of that is just a byproduct of doing everything there is to do.

    I'm not sure if there is a better suggestion. This exercise requires a list to be used.
    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.

    Thanks @KDoggg2017 i couldn't have put it better myself
  • Cendar333Cendar333 Posts: 303

    Well the question of who is desirable is more or less comes down to the person. Some one could consider WW2 captain America a desirable champion and also consider some one like sabretooth undesirable. At the end of the day it comes down to the person just like tier lists champs most people consider undesirable others might find it desirable. So bottom line of what I’m trying to say is there is never going to be a champion everyone desires because people will always have different ideas on who is “desirable”

    I agree, but the point of this exercise was not to comment on the specific desirability of any one champion but rather to try and capture the experience of the majority of the player base when opening a generic crystal to maybe illustrate why people have recently had increased concerns on champion acquisition
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,097 ★★★★★

    The problem is, if you're only using Seatin's Tier List to define what's useful, that's limiting. Application also plays a factor, and that entirely depends on what you're working on. For people who have everything done, that definition narrows even more. Some of that is just a byproduct of doing everything there is to do.

    I'm not sure if there is a better suggestion. This exercise requires a list to be used.
    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.
    It's subjective. The God Tier List is one person's breakdown of Champs. It's an opinion piece that's become tenet for many people. So much so that they adhere to it strictly as a gauge on what's useful and what isn't. Overall usefulness takes in more information.
    I agree it is subjective.
    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.
    There's a line between using it as a gauge to compare it to your own experiences, and accepting it as absolute. A better look at this breakdown would be usefulness "as Seatin sees it".
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,097 ★★★★★
    I just feel the need to clarify because there are many people who accept that list as an absolute. They only go for God Tiers, only Rank God Tiers, don't really use anything outside of that, and a great deal of usefulness isn't seen. Typically, what's valued is the heaviest-hitting, OP Champs. Capable of the MOST Damage, and there's more to usefulness than that.
  • Cendar333Cendar333 Posts: 303

    The problem is, if you're only using Seatin's Tier List to define what's useful, that's limiting. Application also plays a factor, and that entirely depends on what you're working on. For people who have everything done, that definition narrows even more. Some of that is just a byproduct of doing everything there is to do.

    I'm not sure if there is a better suggestion. This exercise requires a list to be used.
    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.
    It's subjective. The God Tier List is one person's breakdown of Champs. It's an opinion piece that's become tenet for many people. So much so that they adhere to it strictly as a gauge on what's useful and what isn't. Overall usefulness takes in more information.
    I agree it is subjective.
    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.
    There's a line between using it as a gauge to compare it to your own experiences, and accepting it as absolute. A better look at this breakdown would be usefulness "as Seatin sees it".
    Respectfully, I believe i addressed your concern in my opening post and posted my justification for using it for data after 2017. Furthermore the point of the post is not to discuss seatin's tier list. As long as you can accept that it has a rough estimation for the percentage of champs that are desirable, i think most would, it doesn't matter what list we use. My data is not based on any one specific champ but rather percentages of desirability in any pull
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,097 ★★★★★
    Cendar333 said:

    The problem is, if you're only using Seatin's Tier List to define what's useful, that's limiting. Application also plays a factor, and that entirely depends on what you're working on. For people who have everything done, that definition narrows even more. Some of that is just a byproduct of doing everything there is to do.

    I'm not sure if there is a better suggestion. This exercise requires a list to be used.
    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.
    It's subjective. The God Tier List is one person's breakdown of Champs. It's an opinion piece that's become tenet for many people. So much so that they adhere to it strictly as a gauge on what's useful and what isn't. Overall usefulness takes in more information.
    I agree it is subjective.
    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.
    There's a line between using it as a gauge to compare it to your own experiences, and accepting it as absolute. A better look at this breakdown would be usefulness "as Seatin sees it".
    Respectfully, I believe i addressed your concern in my opening post and posted my justification for using it for data after 2017. Furthermore the point of the post is not to discuss seatin's tier list. As long as you can accept that it has a rough estimation for the percentage of champs that are desirable, i think most would, it doesn't matter what list we use. My data is not based on any one specific champ but rather percentages of desirability in any pull
    Actually it's pertinent to the discussion because that's the gauge you've chosen to use for your findings. It sets the base for the entire observation. Most people may accept that, but that's not necessarily a reflection of the game overall, or what's actually useful in terms of all aspects of the game. Perspective is key.
  • Cendar333Cendar333 Posts: 303

    Cendar333 said:

    The problem is, if you're only using Seatin's Tier List to define what's useful, that's limiting. Application also plays a factor, and that entirely depends on what you're working on. For people who have everything done, that definition narrows even more. Some of that is just a byproduct of doing everything there is to do.

    I'm not sure if there is a better suggestion. This exercise requires a list to be used.
    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.
    It's subjective. The God Tier List is one person's breakdown of Champs. It's an opinion piece that's become tenet for many people. So much so that they adhere to it strictly as a gauge on what's useful and what isn't. Overall usefulness takes in more information.
    I agree it is subjective.
    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.
    There's a line between using it as a gauge to compare it to your own experiences, and accepting it as absolute. A better look at this breakdown would be usefulness "as Seatin sees it".
    Respectfully, I believe i addressed your concern in my opening post and posted my justification for using it for data after 2017. Furthermore the point of the post is not to discuss seatin's tier list. As long as you can accept that it has a rough estimation for the percentage of champs that are desirable, i think most would, it doesn't matter what list we use. My data is not based on any one specific champ but rather percentages of desirability in any pull
    Actually it's pertinent to the discussion because that's the gauge you've chosen to use for your findings. It sets the base for the entire observation. Most people may accept that, but that's not necessarily a reflection of the game overall, or what's actually useful in terms of all aspects of the game. Perspective is key.
    As you've stated, perspective is key...
  • Cendar333Cendar333 Posts: 303
    DNA3000 said:

    you'd have to look at how shard rates are now. Back in the day, you'd open a 4* every month or 2, and now you can open several 5* a month. Have 1 shot at 20% is worse then having 3 shots at 10%

    This is true. And in fact the availability of 5* champs is vastly higher than it used to be. I've gone from opening one 5* every three months to opening one a week or more, which is a more than ten times increase in availability at least for me.

    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.
    Yeah i think the real analogue to a 5* one year ago is not a 5* now but rather a 6*. That's why i tried to normalize things with highest and secondary meta crystal rather than 5* over time.

    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
  • BigPoppaCBONEBigPoppaCBONE Posts: 2,223 ★★★★★
    _ASDF_ said:


    Some people get lost in the woods and never find their way out.

    Too busy furiously picking nits and it's pretty hard when you're missing the point on your picker.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,097 ★★★★★
    Cendar333 said:

    I think you're missing the forest for the trees @GroundedWisdom

    Not really. As I said before, I respect your effort, and I appreciate the time you took to do it. Your approach is completely objective. It's the incompleteness of the source material I am pointing out. I would be more invested in a more statistical approach based on data rather than someone's personal review.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,097 ★★★★★

    Cendar333 said:

    I think you're missing the forest for the trees @GroundedWisdom

    Not really. As I said before, I respect your effort, and I appreciate the time you took to do it. Your approach is completely objective. It's the incompleteness of the source material I am pointing out. I would be more invested in a more statistical approach based on data rather than someone's personal review.
    How different do you think that data would be for a given use vs an expert's subjective opinion? Probably not enough of a difference to keep harping on about it. For that matter, what would that objective data even be? They're being placed into tiers, not individually scored. Not being an idiot would tell someone that the vast majority of champs in the game are at best 2nd class citizens. Changing their order around won't make a difference unless one makes a bunch of moves like insisting that a given champ is in a given tier when their suitability and usage says otherwise.
    An expert's subjective opinion....not going to get into that. As for the opinion that the vast majority are second-class citizens...that's incredibly biased. That's not the results of analyzing usefulness at as many aspects as possible. That's valuing the highest, and devaluing everything else. That's not impartial.
    Odachi said:

    As much as I appreciate the effort you put into this, I don't think Seatin's Tier List is a helpful gauge to apply to overall game statistics.

    As a base metric without using the specific tier classifications and understanding the viability of champs, they are. Nice failed effort to derail another thread.
    #swingandamiss
    Tiers are not a necessary way to look at data.
  • Cendar333Cendar333 Posts: 303
    For those who are joining the conversation later I just want to re-post and summarize the data here.

    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.

  • Cendar333Cendar333 Posts: 303
    The way I see it the three most straightforward options would be:

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.