**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.
Options

Thronbreaker Delay

24

Comments

  • Options
    TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★

    Jungle92 said:

    @Kabam Miike is it possible to have a news on why the title was delayed? Techical problems or title requirements update?

    Technical Problems. There is no change to the requirements which were already much lower than they should have/could have been.
    Can you please share what were you all thinking it could be at first? I just want people to understand the break they received in this case.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,245 ★★★★★

    Jungle92 said:

    @Kabam Miike is it possible to have a news on why the title was delayed? Techical problems or title requirements update?

    Technical Problems. There is no change to the requirements which were already much lower than they should have/could have been.
    Can you please share what were you all thinking it could be at first? I just want people to understand the break they received in this case.
    It was tied into the original Act 7, which was most definitely harder.
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,245 ★★★★★
    Ebony_Naw said:

    Jungle92 said:

    @Kabam Miike is it possible to have a news on why the title was delayed? Techical problems or title requirements update?

    Technical Problems. There is no change to the requirements which were already much lower than they should have/could have been.
    Can you please share what were you all thinking it could be at first? I just want people to understand the break they received in this case.
    It was tied into the original Act 7, which was most definitely harder.
    But I think even after the new iteration of Act 7 many summoners caught a break. I would genuinely like to know what Kabam was thinking of setting the limit at when they first discussed including roster progression into the new progression title. My guess is 4 champs at r3, which is the bare minimum number of t5cc any ftp would have if they explored Abyss and Act 6.
    Actually, they specified that this was the separator they were left with after the adjustments, so I would assume it wasn't tied into R3s before this.
  • Options
    danielmathdanielmath Posts: 4,045 ★★★★★
    Ebony_Naw said:

    Jungle92 said:

    @Kabam Miike is it possible to have a news on why the title was delayed? Techical problems or title requirements update?

    Technical Problems. There is no change to the requirements which were already much lower than they should have/could have been.
    Can you please share what were you all thinking it could be at first? I just want people to understand the break they received in this case.
    It was tied into the original Act 7, which was most definitely harder.
    But I think even after the new iteration of Act 7 many summoners caught a break. I would genuinely like to know what Kabam was thinking of setting the limit at when they first discussed including roster progression into the new progression title. My guess is 4 champs at r3, which is the bare minimum number of t5cc any ftp would have if they explored Abyss and Act 6.
    he said somewhere else, 7.2 was the original intention before they killed off story mode
  • Options
    gp87gp87 Posts: 325 ★★★

    Jungle92 said:

    @Kabam Miike is it possible to have a news on why the title was delayed? Techical problems or title requirements update?

    Technical Problems. There is no change to the requirements which were already much lower than they should have/could have been.
    +1 by me 🙏🏽

  • Options
    DarkSoulDLXDarkSoulDLX Posts: 676 ★★★
    Magneto is still awesome!
  • Options
    DeaconDeacon Posts: 4,066 ★★★★★

    Jungle92 said:

    @Kabam Miike is it possible to have a news on why the title was delayed? Techical problems or title requirements update?

    Technical Problems. There is no change to the requirements which were already much lower than they should have/could have been.
    I'm having a toast in your name tonight sir! :)
  • Options
    KDSuperFlash10KDSuperFlash10 Posts: 5,869 ★★★★★
    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    This is a frequent occurence. That's why I didn't do the summoner showdown pre-nerf. That's why I didn't rush through A6. That's why you don't do side events on day 1.

    I take all Announcements w/ a grain of salt. I wait for 1) Community Feedback, 2) For it to be implemented in game and 3) ~1 Week period to see if they nerf it.

    If they change the requirements, I will feel bad for those that pulled triggers already. But people need to start being patient!

    What a wise man
  • Options
    danielmathdanielmath Posts: 4,045 ★★★★★

    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    This is a frequent occurence. That's why I didn't do the summoner showdown pre-nerf. That's why I didn't rush through A6. That's why you don't do side events on day 1.

    I take all Announcements w/ a grain of salt. I wait for 1) Community Feedback, 2) For it to be implemented in game and 3) ~1 Week period to see if they nerf it.

    If they change the requirements, I will feel bad for those that pulled triggers already. But people need to start being patient!

    What a wise man
    ya it's pretty smart with any tech stuff, i always wait to buy the new iphone till its been out for a few weeks and they have a chance to fix the bugs
  • Options
    Aziz5253Aziz5253 Posts: 495 ★★★

    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    This is a frequent occurence. That's why I didn't do the summoner showdown pre-nerf. That's why I didn't rush through A6. That's why you don't do side events on day 1.

    I take all Announcements w/ a grain of salt. I wait for 1) Community Feedback, 2) For it to be implemented in game and 3) ~1 Week period to see if they nerf it.

    If they change the requirements, I will feel bad for those that pulled triggers already. But people need to start being patient!

    "Community Feedback" lol.. you mean the whining and the crying because it wasn't catered to each players needs and wants. Like summoner showdown.
    The summoner showdown didn't have to be that difficult, it was a celebration of sorts. There's a lot other areas in the game that are challenging so it's time to get over the showdown nerf
  • Options
    Aziz5253Aziz5253 Posts: 495 ★★★
    Ebony_Naw said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Jungle92 said:

    @Kabam Miike is it possible to have a news on why the title was delayed? Techical problems or title requirements update?

    Technical Problems. There is no change to the requirements which were already much lower than they should have/could have been.
    Can you please share what were you all thinking it could be at first? I just want people to understand the break they received in this case.
    It was tied into the original Act 7, which was most definitely harder.
    But I think even after the new iteration of Act 7 many summoners caught a break. I would genuinely like to know what Kabam was thinking of setting the limit at when they first discussed including roster progression into the new progression title. My guess is 4 champs at r3, which is the bare minimum number of t5cc any ftp would have if they explored Abyss and Act 6.
    he said somewhere else, 7.2 was the original intention before they killed off story mode
    Yes, in the Og discussion thread. But my point is after they killed off story mode they did not have to stop at 1 r3. Anyone in the endgame community they're targeting has at least 4 t5cc. Therefore, they could have required you to have 4 r3 champs. I'm curious if that was ever a point of discussion at Kabam HQ.
    That would've narrowed down the player base WAY too much I suppose. There would've been a LOT of people in cavalier but very little in throne breaker, so to make things more balanced I guess they went with that
  • Options
    danielmathdanielmath Posts: 4,045 ★★★★★
    Aziz5253 said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Jungle92 said:

    @Kabam Miike is it possible to have a news on why the title was delayed? Techical problems or title requirements update?

    Technical Problems. There is no change to the requirements which were already much lower than they should have/could have been.
    Can you please share what were you all thinking it could be at first? I just want people to understand the break they received in this case.
    It was tied into the original Act 7, which was most definitely harder.
    But I think even after the new iteration of Act 7 many summoners caught a break. I would genuinely like to know what Kabam was thinking of setting the limit at when they first discussed including roster progression into the new progression title. My guess is 4 champs at r3, which is the bare minimum number of t5cc any ftp would have if they explored Abyss and Act 6.
    he said somewhere else, 7.2 was the original intention before they killed off story mode
    Yes, in the Og discussion thread. But my point is after they killed off story mode they did not have to stop at 1 r3. Anyone in the endgame community they're targeting has at least 4 t5cc. Therefore, they could have required you to have 4 r3 champs. I'm curious if that was ever a point of discussion at Kabam HQ.
    That would've narrowed down the player base WAY too much I suppose. There would've been a LOT of people in cavalier but very little in throne breaker, so to make things more balanced I guess they went with that
    Shouldn't the top progression point be pretty narrow?
  • Options
    Aziz5253Aziz5253 Posts: 495 ★★★

    Aziz5253 said:

    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    This is a frequent occurence. That's why I didn't do the summoner showdown pre-nerf. That's why I didn't rush through A6. That's why you don't do side events on day 1.

    I take all Announcements w/ a grain of salt. I wait for 1) Community Feedback, 2) For it to be implemented in game and 3) ~1 Week period to see if they nerf it.

    If they change the requirements, I will feel bad for those that pulled triggers already. But people need to start being patient!

    "Community Feedback" lol.. you mean the whining and the crying because it wasn't catered to each players needs and wants. Like summoner showdown.
    The summoner showdown didn't have to be that difficult, it was a celebration of sorts. There's a lot other areas in the game that are challenging so it's time to get over the showdown nerf
    Nah, I quite like referencing that nerf. Ultimate example of "cry hard enough to get what we want" mentality. It wasn't a celebration of anything. It was to allow those who couldn't complete, have a taste of what the real challenge was. But can't have that in this game.
    They did make it restrictive with the 4* specific champ requirement. Would've been a challenge if everyone had one specific 4* allotted to them for it. If that was permanent content that might've been okay, but for temporary content especially in a week or two, that was indeed too restrictive. Besides, we did have the show down difficulty for the challenge.
  • Options
    Aziz5253Aziz5253 Posts: 495 ★★★

    Aziz5253 said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Ebony_Naw said:

    Jungle92 said:

    @Kabam Miike is it possible to have a news on why the title was delayed? Techical problems or title requirements update?

    Technical Problems. There is no change to the requirements which were already much lower than they should have/could have been.
    Can you please share what were you all thinking it could be at first? I just want people to understand the break they received in this case.
    It was tied into the original Act 7, which was most definitely harder.
    But I think even after the new iteration of Act 7 many summoners caught a break. I would genuinely like to know what Kabam was thinking of setting the limit at when they first discussed including roster progression into the new progression title. My guess is 4 champs at r3, which is the bare minimum number of t5cc any ftp would have if they explored Abyss and Act 6.
    he said somewhere else, 7.2 was the original intention before they killed off story mode
    Yes, in the Og discussion thread. But my point is after they killed off story mode they did not have to stop at 1 r3. Anyone in the endgame community they're targeting has at least 4 t5cc. Therefore, they could have required you to have 4 r3 champs. I'm curious if that was ever a point of discussion at Kabam HQ.
    That would've narrowed down the player base WAY too much I suppose. There would've been a LOT of people in cavalier but very little in throne breaker, so to make things more balanced I guess they went with that
    Shouldn't the top progression point be pretty narrow?
    Compared to cavalier it's still narrow, but if they're going to pace things up now they've gotten the hang of how they have to adjust story content, then there should be another title coming soon after Act 7, which makes it sensible to place it where it is rn
  • Options
    DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 21,022 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    This is a frequent occurence. That's why I didn't do the summoner showdown pre-nerf. That's why I didn't rush through A6. That's why you don't do side events on day 1.

    I take all Announcements w/ a grain of salt. I wait for 1) Community Feedback, 2) For it to be implemented in game and 3) ~1 Week period to see if they nerf it.

    If they change the requirements, I will feel bad for those that pulled triggers already. But people need to start being patient!

    "Community Feedback" lol.. you mean the whining and the crying because it wasn't catered to each players needs and wants. Like summoner showdown.
    My perspective on this is a bit different, because I initially defended the difficulty of iteration one of Book 2. I came to the conclusion that Book 2 was too difficult not because it was too difficult for me personally, and not because it was too difficult for any other single player, but because the level of difficulty was too difficult for the purposes of progression itself, given how progression and the progression reward system of the game worked. It took time and discussion to reach that conclusion. But Book 2's difficulty was also a reasonable extrapolation of Act 6 difficulty, which suggested that if Act 5 was fine for progression and Book 2 was not, Act 6 must have been the place where it flipped from being consistent with the game's progression ladder to being inconsistent with it. And that led me to analyze Act 6 from scratch, jettisoning any assumptions about whether it was doable or not and simply ask if Act 6 was a reasonable difficulty projection from Act 5, given how champion rosters get stronger from 4* to 5* to 6*. And that led me to the conclusion that Act 6 was too difficult for the game's progression (or rather it most likely transitioned to that somewhere between 6.2 and 6.3), which wasn't influenced by anyone's particular complaints about it.

    If Kabam listened to anything I said about Book 2 difficulty, where I initially supported it and then later reassessed, or Act 6 where I analyzed that from scratch, that feedback didn't echo subjective complaints about the content in any real way. I did make *some* assumptions about how strong the average player would likely be in the game based on reasonable assumptions about how difficult content earlier than Act 6 is compared to the playerbase, but I don't think those assumptions were especially radical.

    Sure, people complain about content being too difficult all the time. Back when people would complain about Uncollected monthly content or side quests on day one, I would be first in line to say those complaints could not possibly be valid so soon after the release of the content and without spending any time attempting to put serious effort into completing it. Those were all wildly subjective complaints about the content. But I think an objective case can be made that Act 6 and the first iteration of Book 2 did not function properly as progressional content, and since all future story arc content relied upon getting through both it was unreasonable to gate all future *story* content behind end game class difficulty.

    I'm aware reducing the difficulty of Act 6 and Book 2 were not universally loved decisions, but I stand by the feedback I made on both. I'm not vouching for the feedback or motives of anyone else, just my own. I think it is better for the game as a whole if the story arc content remain accessible as progressional content for most players (which is not to say it should be easy, just in-line with roughly the same power curve as roster growth), and end game content should exist as optional content outside the main progressional path, but I can understand how some people view the changes as watering down what they originally perceived to be and what they want to continue to be end game content. I simply believe that the game should not have a point where if you're unable to do end game caliber difficulty the rest of the game past a certain point becomes completely inaccessible.
    The difference is that your feedback is constructive, thought out and had a goal in mind. "Feedback" if you want to call it that for things like Summoner Show down isn't constructive. None of it was. People had an idea in their head that the non-competitive event would be Kabam just giving them 5* shards for a super easy fight. That wasn't ever the intention of the event.

    We were given a team of 5 to take a defender. It wasn't that difficult, but because people read into what was in the announcement, they complained enough to get it changed.

    Most of OG 7.1 was fine. There were several fights in that first beta that needed changed for sure. Again, the voice of the "Karen" types have to have the content nerfed beyond anything.

    There won't be anything challenging left at all because the community is learning that if they complain loud and long enough, it will get changed.

    I've already seen people still asking for a further nerf of crossbones. Many requests of paths in Cav difficulty being asked to be nerfed just because they don't have a counter or whatever other excuses

  • Options
    Strikerrx8Strikerrx8 Posts: 1,090 ★★★
    Y don't u make it easyer to get cct5 add them in glory store
  • Options
    LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    Siliyo said:

    Siliyo said:

    Jungle92 said:

    @Kabam Miike is it possible to have a news on why the title was delayed? Techical problems or title requirements update?

    Technical Problems. There is no change to the requirements which were already much lower than they should have/could have been.
    And what requirements “should have/could have” been?
    Act 7.2 or something
    Rank 3 6* lower requirement than 7.2? Ridiculous if that’s so.
    why is that ridiculous?
  • Options
    GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,245 ★★★★★
    edited October 2020
    DNA3000 said:

    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    This is a frequent occurence. That's why I didn't do the summoner showdown pre-nerf. That's why I didn't rush through A6. That's why you don't do side events on day 1.

    I take all Announcements w/ a grain of salt. I wait for 1) Community Feedback, 2) For it to be implemented in game and 3) ~1 Week period to see if they nerf it.

    If they change the requirements, I will feel bad for those that pulled triggers already. But people need to start being patient!

    "Community Feedback" lol.. you mean the whining and the crying because it wasn't catered to each players needs and wants. Like summoner showdown.
    My perspective on this is a bit different, because I initially defended the difficulty of iteration one of Book 2. I came to the conclusion that Book 2 was too difficult not because it was too difficult for me personally, and not because it was too difficult for any other single player, but because the level of difficulty was too difficult for the purposes of progression itself, given how progression and the progression reward system of the game worked. It took time and discussion to reach that conclusion. But Book 2's difficulty was also a reasonable extrapolation of Act 6 difficulty, which suggested that if Act 5 was fine for progression and Book 2 was not, Act 6 must have been the place where it flipped from being consistent with the game's progression ladder to being inconsistent with it. And that led me to analyze Act 6 from scratch, jettisoning any assumptions about whether it was doable or not and simply ask if Act 6 was a reasonable difficulty projection from Act 5, given how champion rosters get stronger from 4* to 5* to 6*. And that led me to the conclusion that Act 6 was too difficult for the game's progression (or rather it most likely transitioned to that somewhere between 6.2 and 6.3), which wasn't influenced by anyone's particular complaints about it.

    If Kabam listened to anything I said about Book 2 difficulty, where I initially supported it and then later reassessed, or Act 6 where I analyzed that from scratch, that feedback didn't echo subjective complaints about the content in any real way. I did make *some* assumptions about how strong the average player would likely be in the game based on reasonable assumptions about how difficult content earlier than Act 6 is compared to the playerbase, but I don't think those assumptions were especially radical.

    Sure, people complain about content being too difficult all the time. Back when people would complain about Uncollected monthly content or side quests on day one, I would be first in line to say those complaints could not possibly be valid so soon after the release of the content and without spending any time attempting to put serious effort into completing it. Those were all wildly subjective complaints about the content. But I think an objective case can be made that Act 6 and the first iteration of Book 2 did not function properly as progressional content, and since all future story arc content relied upon getting through both it was unreasonable to gate all future *story* content behind end game class difficulty.

    I'm aware reducing the difficulty of Act 6 and Book 2 were not universally loved decisions, but I stand by the feedback I made on both. I'm not vouching for the feedback or motives of anyone else, just my own. I think it is better for the game as a whole if the story arc content remain accessible as progressional content for most players (which is not to say it should be easy, just in-line with roughly the same power curve as roster growth), and end game content should exist as optional content outside the main progressional path, but I can understand how some people view the changes as watering down what they originally perceived to be and what they want to continue to be end game content. I simply believe that the game should not have a point where if you're unable to do end game caliber difficulty the rest of the game past a certain point becomes completely inaccessible.
    Which is precisely why I support what you presented. It really has very little to do with the specific complaints. It's just very difficult to argue what was presented. For some reason, some feel it was only done because people whined, and that's not accurate. People complain all the time. Evidently there was validity in what they looked at as well.
  • Options
    DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 21,022 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Ya_Boi_28 said:

    This is a frequent occurence. That's why I didn't do the summoner showdown pre-nerf. That's why I didn't rush through A6. That's why you don't do side events on day 1.

    I take all Announcements w/ a grain of salt. I wait for 1) Community Feedback, 2) For it to be implemented in game and 3) ~1 Week period to see if they nerf it.

    If they change the requirements, I will feel bad for those that pulled triggers already. But people need to start being patient!

    "Community Feedback" lol.. you mean the whining and the crying because it wasn't catered to each players needs and wants. Like summoner showdown.
    My perspective on this is a bit different, because I initially defended the difficulty of iteration one of Book 2. I came to the conclusion that Book 2 was too difficult not because it was too difficult for me personally, and not because it was too difficult for any other single player, but because the level of difficulty was too difficult for the purposes of progression itself, given how progression and the progression reward system of the game worked. It took time and discussion to reach that conclusion. But Book 2's difficulty was also a reasonable extrapolation of Act 6 difficulty, which suggested that if Act 5 was fine for progression and Book 2 was not, Act 6 must have been the place where it flipped from being consistent with the game's progression ladder to being inconsistent with it. And that led me to analyze Act 6 from scratch, jettisoning any assumptions about whether it was doable or not and simply ask if Act 6 was a reasonable difficulty projection from Act 5, given how champion rosters get stronger from 4* to 5* to 6*. And that led me to the conclusion that Act 6 was too difficult for the game's progression (or rather it most likely transitioned to that somewhere between 6.2 and 6.3), which wasn't influenced by anyone's particular complaints about it.

    If Kabam listened to anything I said about Book 2 difficulty, where I initially supported it and then later reassessed, or Act 6 where I analyzed that from scratch, that feedback didn't echo subjective complaints about the content in any real way. I did make *some* assumptions about how strong the average player would likely be in the game based on reasonable assumptions about how difficult content earlier than Act 6 is compared to the playerbase, but I don't think those assumptions were especially radical.

    Sure, people complain about content being too difficult all the time. Back when people would complain about Uncollected monthly content or side quests on day one, I would be first in line to say those complaints could not possibly be valid so soon after the release of the content and without spending any time attempting to put serious effort into completing it. Those were all wildly subjective complaints about the content. But I think an objective case can be made that Act 6 and the first iteration of Book 2 did not function properly as progressional content, and since all future story arc content relied upon getting through both it was unreasonable to gate all future *story* content behind end game class difficulty.

    I'm aware reducing the difficulty of Act 6 and Book 2 were not universally loved decisions, but I stand by the feedback I made on both. I'm not vouching for the feedback or motives of anyone else, just my own. I think it is better for the game as a whole if the story arc content remain accessible as progressional content for most players (which is not to say it should be easy, just in-line with roughly the same power curve as roster growth), and end game content should exist as optional content outside the main progressional path, but I can understand how some people view the changes as watering down what they originally perceived to be and what they want to continue to be end game content. I simply believe that the game should not have a point where if you're unable to do end game caliber difficulty the rest of the game past a certain point becomes completely inaccessible.
    The difference is that your feedback is constructive, thought out and had a goal in mind. "Feedback" if you want to call it that for things like Summoner Show down isn't constructive. None of it was. People had an idea in their head that the non-competitive event would be Kabam just giving them 5* shards for a super easy fight. That wasn't ever the intention of the event.

    We were given a team of 5 to take a defender. It wasn't that difficult, but because people read into what was in the announcement, they complained enough to get it changed.
    I didn't agree with the complaints about the Summoner Showdown, because that's competitive optional content. In fact I went out of my way to do the first week with 4* before it was adjusted, just because. I can understand that some people *wanted* it to be a participation activity, and there is a place for that, but I think there is so little content like Summoner Showdown (or rather what it launched as) that it was not fair to appropriate it for other purposes.

    I should also point out that my complaint about Act 6 and Book 2 wasn't that they were hard today. If that's all it was, I don't think that's a problem. It should be hard for some subset of the playerbase today. I wouldn't say Act 6 is easy for me either. My concern was that Act 6 and Book 2 wouldn't be accessible for average players - or even below average players which a lot of people by definition are - even in the foreseeable future projecting future roster strength quite a bit down the road.

    That's also why I have no really big problem with Thronebreaker. Some people think it is too easy to get, some think it is too hard to get. My opinion is that it is inevitable for the players it is targeted at, so there's obviously a reasonable path to get there, it will just take time. And it while it could be higher, aiming for the very top of the top like some people suggest doesn't make as much sense to me, as the point to progressional reward bumps is to help people at one part of the game to move up to the next part. The players at the very very top don't need help: it is the people just below them who have just started to do what the very top are well into doing that are the better target for the next progressional tier in my opinion. At least that's my opinion on that.

    There won't be anything challenging left at all because the community is learning that if they complain loud and long enough, it will get changed.

    I don't think the devs would go that far. It of course depends on your definition of "challenging" but they kept the difficulty of Omega, they added the 4* challenge to Cavalier, they seem to be both moderating some of the core content but also trying to add optional more challenging content. And there's still the Summer Winter of Pain that's supposed to be still in the works. I think that content will say a lot about whether Kabam can hold two design thoughts in their head at the same time: that the core progression content must be accessible, even if the end gamers complain about it, and at least some of the optional content must be super challenging, even if the weaker players complain about it.
    100% in agreement that Thronebreaker is where it needs to be. I think the requirement is good. Could've been tied more to book 2 but I'm fine with it.

    I hope Kabam can continue the path with the difficulty. The fights I meant for OG book 2 were fights like the Sabertooth in beta. That was just poor design.

    The community just needs to realize that not everything is meant for everyone at the same time. Roster growth has to be a priority for players no matter what level. They need to grow into content. Kabam runs the same type of content yearly. The only repeat we haven't seen is The Maze. I wasn't ready back then but I'd love another shot at it.

    We won't ever get away from the complaints. It's just wishful thinking. Just wish people had more constructive ways to explain their position other than what we usually see.
Sign In or Register to comment.