**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.

Thronbreaker Delay

13

Comments

  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Demonzfyre 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.
    Demonzfyre said:

    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.
    I didn't mind the 4* cav challenge for a one of but seeing as how they're basically doing the same thing again this month, I'm not really keen on that being they way they add "challenging content".

    Just brings me back to what's the point of pushing for teams of R3 6*s when actually using them anywhere makes everything in the game mind numbingly boring?

    They're gonna need to be a bit more clever than just "hey, neuter your roster for some extra stuff you don't even need" for me to get any faith in them not boring the top players out of the game at this point
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Demonzfyre 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.
    Demonzfyre said:

    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.
    I didn't mind the 4* cav challenge for a one of but seeing as how they're basically doing the same thing again this month, I'm not really keen on that being they way they add "challenging content".

    Just brings me back to what's the point of pushing for teams of R3 6*s when actually using them anywhere makes everything in the game mind numbingly boring?

    They're gonna need to be a bit more clever than just "hey, neuter your roster for some extra stuff you don't even need" for me to get any faith in them not boring the top players out of the game at this point
    What is the challenge for October? I must have missed it? Hopefully its not 4 stars again lol. I will skip it again.
  • Monk1Monk1 Posts: 745 ★★★★
    I really don’t see why the new title was not awarded for 100% act 6. That makes the ‘cut line’ very simple.

    Also I’m with @TheTalents I hate wasting resources on 4* champs when I have the same as 6*, so please stop the 4* challenges!!!
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    TheTalents said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Demonzfyre 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.
    Demonzfyre said:

    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.
    I didn't mind the 4* cav challenge for a one of but seeing as how they're basically doing the same thing again this month, I'm not really keen on that being they way they add "challenging content".

    Just brings me back to what's the point of pushing for teams of R3 6*s when actually using them anywhere makes everything in the game mind numbingly boring?

    They're gonna need to be a bit more clever than just "hey, neuter your roster for some extra stuff you don't even need" for me to get any faith in them not boring the top players out of the game at this point
    What is the challenge for October? I must have missed it? Hopefully its not 4 stars again lol. I will skip it again.
    Legendary side quest with a team of 10k PI or less
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    Monk1 said:

    I really don’t see why the new title was not awarded for 100% act 6. That makes the ‘cut line’ very simple.

    Also I’m with @TheTalents I hate wasting resources on 4* champs when I have the same as 6*, so please stop the 4* challenges!!!

    I think it's fun for an occasional thing. I enjoyed last month's. If that's the only way they're going to do this though, I'll be skipping far more of them than I complete
  • Etm34Etm34 Posts: 1,644 ★★★★★
    Worknprogress said:

    TheTalents said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Demonzfyre 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.
    Demonzfyre said:

    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.
    I didn't mind the 4* cav challenge for a one of but seeing as how they're basically doing the same thing again this month, I'm not really keen on that being they way they add "challenging content".

    Just brings me back to what's the point of pushing for teams of R3 6*s when actually using them anywhere makes everything in the game mind numbingly boring?

    They're gonna need to be a bit more clever than just "hey, neuter your roster for some extra stuff you don't even need" for me to get any faith in them not boring the top players out of the game at this point
    What is the challenge for October? I must have missed it? Hopefully its not 4 stars again lol. I will skip it again.
    Legendary side quest with a team of 10k PI or less
    Guess for this one if you have one 5* R3 champ with a favorable matchup you can just bring that one champ, plus some 2* for synergy.
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    Etm34 said:


    Worknprogress said:

    TheTalents said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Demonzfyre 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.
    Demonzfyre said:

    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.
    I didn't mind the 4* cav challenge for a one of but seeing as how they're basically doing the same thing again this month, I'm not really keen on that being they way they add "challenging content".

    Just brings me back to what's the point of pushing for teams of R3 6*s when actually using them anywhere makes everything in the game mind numbingly boring?

    They're gonna need to be a bit more clever than just "hey, neuter your roster for some extra stuff you don't even need" for me to get any faith in them not boring the top players out of the game at this point
    What is the challenge for October? I must have missed it? Hopefully its not 4 stars again lol. I will skip it again.
    Legendary side quest with a team of 10k PI or less
    Guess for this one if you have one 5* R3 champ with a favorable matchup you can just bring that one champ, plus some 2* for synergy.
    Which I assume will be the play for most people or at least a R5 4* plus synergies unless each fight needs a hard counter
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    That's one of the things I'd prefer to see them do with the new title personally. Make a throne breaker difficulty that's basically like a boss rush with the EQ bosses. They could either buff up the bosses further or make challenges that limit your team selection on tags/class/etc... as opposed to just using lower rarity versions of champs we already have ranked at relevant rarities
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    That could add an additional level to keep some of the more advanced players interested each month without adding a ton of dev time needed to actually implement it. Don't need to add massive amounts of rewards to it as it would be relatively quick to complete for a lot of players so that also doesn't flood the game with even more resources.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    Worknprogress said:

    Etm34 said:


    Worknprogress said:

    TheTalents said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Demonzfyre 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.
    Demonzfyre said:

    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.
    I didn't mind the 4* cav challenge for a one of but seeing as how they're basically doing the same thing again this month, I'm not really keen on that being they way they add "challenging content".

    Just brings me back to what's the point of pushing for teams of R3 6*s when actually using them anywhere makes everything in the game mind numbingly boring?

    They're gonna need to be a bit more clever than just "hey, neuter your roster for some extra stuff you don't even need" for me to get any faith in them not boring the top players out of the game at this point
    What is the challenge for October? I must have missed it? Hopefully its not 4 stars again lol. I will skip it again.
    Legendary side quest with a team of 10k PI or less
    Guess for this one if you have one 5* R3 champ with a favorable matchup you can just bring that one champ, plus some 2* for synergy.
    Which I assume will be the play for most people or at least a R5 4* plus synergies unless each fight needs a hard counter
    My first thought was definitely r4 5 stars. I got plenty of them. I don't mind that at all. 4 stars though, I just can't do.
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    Worknprogress said:

    That's one of the things I'd prefer to see them do with the new title personally. Make a throne breaker difficulty that's basically like a boss rush with the EQ bosses. They could either buff up the bosses further or make challenges that limit your team selection on tags/class/etc... as opposed to just using lower rarity versions of champs we already have ranked at relevant rarities

    I like this idea, hopefully they listen for the following month.
  • Monk1Monk1 Posts: 745 ★★★★
    Worknprogress said:

    Monk1 said:

    I really don’t see why the new title was not awarded for 100% act 6. That makes the ‘cut line’ very simple.

    Also I’m with @TheTalents I hate wasting resources on 4* champs when I have the same as 6*, so please stop the 4* challenges!!!

    I think it's fun for an occasional thing. I enjoyed last month's. If that's the only way they're going to do this though, I'll be skipping far more of them than I complete
    I did this months one... but had to r5 a 4* ghost. First time it ranked a 4* in prob 3 years.

    Why make us waste resources.

    I did however like the diversity challenge of cav eq. Making u use different champs with extra class bonuses
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    Monk1 said:

    I really don’t see why the new title was not awarded for 100% act 6. That makes the ‘cut line’ very simple.

    Also I’m with @TheTalents I hate wasting resources on 4* champs when I have the same as 6*, so please stop the 4* challenges!!!

    having atleast 1 r3 also makes the cut line very simple.
  • Stagedear85Stagedear85 Posts: 774 ★★★
    ADDIS0N said:

    @DNA3000 - Serious question.

    In your experience, is there a typical skill breakdown for skill-based games that you could apply to a game like MCOC?

    Is it possible to generalize the MCOC player base into skill groups based on any kind of commonly used data across games and platforms?

    I'm just curious as to how things look to better understand how Kabam approaches content development. I see people like @Worknprogress and @Demonzfyre frustrated and it's hard to blame them - they're supposedly great players and have highly developed rosters.

    But what percentage of the total player base do they fall in? What percentage of players are "average" or "above average"? I mean, I feel like I probably fit in the "above average" category with both skill and roster development, but would never claim that I'm worried that content is getting "too easy."

    Is it even possible to break things down? When Kabam makes something like Summer of Pain, is that content intended for less than 3% of the player base?

    I'm assuming there are way too many variables involved to nail anything down, but there seems to be so much pressure for Kabam to cater to the "end game" player, I can't help but wonder how many people that really is and what percentage of their revenue comes from that group.

    I think end game player is like 5 % of the player base, and i say about 35 % above average , 30% average and the rest below. alot of players are new and you have those who retires daily.
  • Monk1Monk1 Posts: 745 ★★★★
    Lormif said:

    Monk1 said:

    I really don’t see why the new title was not awarded for 100% act 6. That makes the ‘cut line’ very simple.

    Also I’m with @TheTalents I hate wasting resources on 4* champs when I have the same as 6*, so please stop the 4* challenges!!!

    having atleast 1 r3 also makes the cut line very simple.
    It does but makes it heavily RNG reliant. I finished Act 6 in early March and have still not used the science AG and science t5cc from it.

    100% exploration removes any rng element
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 21,013 ★★★★★
    Monk1 said:

    Lormif said:

    Monk1 said:

    I really don’t see why the new title was not awarded for 100% act 6. That makes the ‘cut line’ very simple.

    Also I’m with @TheTalents I hate wasting resources on 4* champs when I have the same as 6*, so please stop the 4* challenges!!!

    having atleast 1 r3 also makes the cut line very simple.
    It does but makes it heavily RNG reliant. I finished Act 6 in early March and have still not used the science AG and science t5cc from it.

    100% exploration removes any rng element
    Does it though? All the complaints about act 6 having champion specific fights. Isn't that RNG based as much as RNG is to getting a T5CC or 6* you want to R3?
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    Monk1 said:

    Lormif said:

    Monk1 said:

    I really don’t see why the new title was not awarded for 100% act 6. That makes the ‘cut line’ very simple.

    Also I’m with @TheTalents I hate wasting resources on 4* champs when I have the same as 6*, so please stop the 4* challenges!!!

    having atleast 1 r3 also makes the cut line very simple.
    It does but makes it heavily RNG reliant. I finished Act 6 in early March and have still not used the science AG and science t5cc from it.

    100% exploration removes any rng element
    It makes it not RNG reliant for the target of the title, it is only RNG dependent if you are lower than the titles target audience, which is for you to have lots of r3s. The change you want makes the target audience much lower than what they are targeting.
  • Etm34Etm34 Posts: 1,644 ★★★★★
    Monk1 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Monk1 said:

    I really don’t see why the new title was not awarded for 100% act 6. That makes the ‘cut line’ very simple.

    Also I’m with @TheTalents I hate wasting resources on 4* champs when I have the same as 6*, so please stop the 4* challenges!!!

    I think it's fun for an occasional thing. I enjoyed last month's. If that's the only way they're going to do this though, I'll be skipping far more of them than I complete
    I did this months one... but had to r5 a 4* ghost. First time it ranked a 4* in prob 3 years.

    Why make us waste resources.

    I did however like the diversity challenge of cav eq. Making u use different champs with extra class bonuses
    You didn’t have to rank up 4*. I did the majority of it with 3/30s and 4/40s I had ranked up from years back. With the attacker boost nodes, some champs were OP anyways
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,241 ★★★★★
    Personally I've never sworn off Ranking anything. I work on higher Champs, but in between I do the lower ones for Level Up, SA, or just general progress. Nothing is a waste as far as I'm concerned.
  • Monk1Monk1 Posts: 745 ★★★★
    Demonzfyre said:

    Monk1 said:

    Lormif said:

    Monk1 said:

    I really don’t see why the new title was not awarded for 100% act 6. That makes the ‘cut line’ very simple.

    Also I’m with @TheTalents I hate wasting resources on 4* champs when I have the same as 6*, so please stop the 4* challenges!!!

    having atleast 1 r3 also makes the cut line very simple.
    It does but makes it heavily RNG reliant. I finished Act 6 in early March and have still not used the science AG and science t5cc from it.

    100% exploration removes any rng element
    Does it though? All the complaints about act 6 having champion specific fights. Isn't that RNG based as much as RNG is to getting a T5CC or 6* you want to R3?
    Act 6 was a challenge and I generally enjoyed it.. I’ve done it since the nerf and it is far too easy now. I could do it even with poor RNG is cause have grown my account for 4 years so have the counters I need.

    Personally I don’t mind the r3 requirement but feel overall what ever their next gate is with this title has set the bar too low. Hence 109% act 6 or at least 2-3 r3 6* would of been more realistic
  • TheTalentsTheTalents Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    Monk1 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    Monk1 said:

    Lormif said:

    Monk1 said:

    I really don’t see why the new title was not awarded for 100% act 6. That makes the ‘cut line’ very simple.

    Also I’m with @TheTalents I hate wasting resources on 4* champs when I have the same as 6*, so please stop the 4* challenges!!!

    having atleast 1 r3 also makes the cut line very simple.
    It does but makes it heavily RNG reliant. I finished Act 6 in early March and have still not used the science AG and science t5cc from it.

    100% exploration removes any rng element
    Does it though? All the complaints about act 6 having champion specific fights. Isn't that RNG based as much as RNG is to getting a T5CC or 6* you want to R3?
    Act 6 was a challenge and I generally enjoyed it.. I’ve done it since the nerf and it is far too easy now. I could do it even with poor RNG is cause have grown my account for 4 years so have the counters I need.

    Personally I don’t mind the r3 requirement but feel overall what ever their next gate is with this title has set the bar too low. Hence 109% act 6 or at least 2-3 r3 6* would of been more realistic
    It about money. 100% of act 6 is either a grind fest or unit investment even post nerf unless you have a lot of skill and I mean a whole lot. Even then you looking at a bunch of energy refills minimum. So what is easier to do? You save up a bunch of revives for f2p guys and you beat the grandmaster once. Over time more t5cc comes out and you will eventually get the title within the next 6 months even if you don't go hardcore.
    100% act 6 would alienate far too many players who simply don't want to invest that much time or money in units. The exploration rewards even now are not completely worth the grind let alone what we did pre nerf.



  • Aziz5253Aziz5253 Posts: 495 ★★★
    TheTalents said:

    Monk1 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    Monk1 said:

    Lormif said:

    Monk1 said:

    I really don’t see why the new title was not awarded for 100% act 6. That makes the ‘cut line’ very simple.

    Also I’m with @TheTalents I hate wasting resources on 4* champs when I have the same as 6*, so please stop the 4* challenges!!!

    having atleast 1 r3 also makes the cut line very simple.
    It does but makes it heavily RNG reliant. I finished Act 6 in early March and have still not used the science AG and science t5cc from it.

    100% exploration removes any rng element
    Does it though? All the complaints about act 6 having champion specific fights. Isn't that RNG based as much as RNG is to getting a T5CC or 6* you want to R3?
    Act 6 was a challenge and I generally enjoyed it.. I’ve done it since the nerf and it is far too easy now. I could do it even with poor RNG is cause have grown my account for 4 years so have the counters I need.

    Personally I don’t mind the r3 requirement but feel overall what ever their next gate is with this title has set the bar too low. Hence 109% act 6 or at least 2-3 r3 6* would of been more realistic
    It about money. 100% of act 6 is either a grind fest or unit investment even post nerf unless you have a lot of skill and I mean a whole lot. Even then you looking at a bunch of energy refills minimum. So what is easier to do? You save up a bunch of revives for f2p guys and you beat the grandmaster once. Over time more t5cc comes out and you will eventually get the title within the next 6 months even if you don't go hardcore.
    100% act 6 would alienate far too many players who simply don't want to invest that much time or money in units. The exploration rewards even now are not completely worth the grind let alone what we did pre nerf.



    I disagree with rewards nit being worth it, but it is very intense of a grind indeed
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,241 ★★★★★
    Monk1 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    Monk1 said:

    Lormif said:

    Monk1 said:

    I really don’t see why the new title was not awarded for 100% act 6. That makes the ‘cut line’ very simple.

    Also I’m with @TheTalents I hate wasting resources on 4* champs when I have the same as 6*, so please stop the 4* challenges!!!

    having atleast 1 r3 also makes the cut line very simple.
    It does but makes it heavily RNG reliant. I finished Act 6 in early March and have still not used the science AG and science t5cc from it.

    100% exploration removes any rng element
    Does it though? All the complaints about act 6 having champion specific fights. Isn't that RNG based as much as RNG is to getting a T5CC or 6* you want to R3?
    Act 6 was a challenge and I generally enjoyed it.. I’ve done it since the nerf and it is far too easy now. I could do it even with poor RNG is cause have grown my account for 4 years so have the counters I need.

    Personally I don’t mind the r3 requirement but feel overall what ever their next gate is with this title has set the bar too low. Hence 109% act 6 or at least 2-3 r3 6* would of been more realistic
    That contradicts making it more accessible to begin with. Which is why they moved it to Act 6 with 1 R3.
  • LormifLormif Posts: 7,369 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Monk1 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    Monk1 said:

    Lormif said:

    Monk1 said:

    I really don’t see why the new title was not awarded for 100% act 6. That makes the ‘cut line’ very simple.

    Also I’m with @TheTalents I hate wasting resources on 4* champs when I have the same as 6*, so please stop the 4* challenges!!!

    having atleast 1 r3 also makes the cut line very simple.
    It does but makes it heavily RNG reliant. I finished Act 6 in early March and have still not used the science AG and science t5cc from it.

    100% exploration removes any rng element
    Does it though? All the complaints about act 6 having champion specific fights. Isn't that RNG based as much as RNG is to getting a T5CC or 6* you want to R3?
    Act 6 was a challenge and I generally enjoyed it.. I’ve done it since the nerf and it is far too easy now. I could do it even with poor RNG is cause have grown my account for 4 years so have the counters I need.

    Personally I don’t mind the r3 requirement but feel overall what ever their next gate is with this title has set the bar too low. Hence 109% act 6 or at least 2-3 r3 6* would of been more realistic
    That contradicts making it more accessible to begin with. Which is why they moved it to Act 6 with 1 R3.
    No, it is not, they stated it was because of a change in story content not being a difficult progression anymore, not yo make it more accessible
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 18,657 Guardian
    ADDIS0N said:

    @DNA3000 - Serious question.

    In your experience, is there a typical skill breakdown for skill-based games that you could apply to a game like MCOC?

    Is it possible to generalize the MCOC player base into skill groups based on any kind of commonly used data across games and platforms?

    I'm just curious as to how things look to better understand how Kabam approaches content development. I see people like @Worknprogress and @Demonzfyre frustrated and it's hard to blame them - they're supposedly great players and have highly developed rosters.

    But what percentage of the total player base do they fall in? What percentage of players are "average" or "above average"? I mean, I feel like I probably fit in the "above average" category with both skill and roster development, but would never claim that I'm worried that content is getting "too easy."

    Is it even possible to break things down? When Kabam makes something like Summer of Pain, is that content intended for less than 3% of the player base?

    I'm assuming there are way too many variables involved to nail anything down, but there seems to be so much pressure for Kabam to cater to the "end game" player, I can't help but wonder how many people that really is and what percentage of their revenue comes from that group.

    This is a tricky question to answer, because the "target" of content isn't necessarily who can do it. Consider the Grandmaster (5.2). Uncollected players originally had to bring him down with teams of 5/50s and rank3s, and maybe a rank 4 or two in there, originally because that's all there was. Obviously that takes more skill and effort than brining him down with a team of rank 4s and maybe a rank 5 or two. The intent was for the Grandmaster to initially be a very strong challenge for those who faced him first, right out of the gate. But over time the difficulty of the Grandmaster was expected to drop over time, by virtue of the players having access to stronger rosters to face him. So the intent is usually for content to start off much more difficult than you'd otherwise expect, and for that difficulty to decay over time (even though the content itself doesn't change). This means the "skill hurdle" drops over time. If you want to be one of the first to get past that gate, you have to be among the most skillful players. But eventually, average players can be expected to eventually get past that gate as well, it just takes them longer to build up a roster that can reduce the difficulty enough.

    Permanent content and for different reasons repeating content both have this property of the initial target isn't the eventual target. But things like Omega Boss Rush or the Maze do have one single target, because they only have a limited time when you can take the content on. Content like that tends to be targeted at something between the top 10% of players and the top 1% of players or less. I think Omega, for example, was probably targeted at something between the top 1% and the top 5%. My suspicion is that the Summer of Pain is targeted higher than that.

    You can spend a lot of development time, relatively speaking, on something like the Abyss because it is permanent content: it is theoretically something that everyone could tackle eventually, given enough time and progress. But Omega Boss Rush or the Maze or content like that can't, because they target so few players. But you have to have at least some content like that, to preserve the aspirational element of the game. Which is to say, content like that doesn't just benefit the 1% of players that run it, it also has a pseudo-benefit of sorts for many players who can't do it, but use such content as a benchmark to shoot for to encourage them to continue to progress upward in the game.

    Think of content like the Maze or Summer of Pain as the luxury model that almost no one buys, but everyone associates with the brand. Many players want to play games that have high ceilings even if they themselves won't reach it, because it makes the game seem more well developed. Kabam can't spend all their time making content for the very top players, but it has to make some, not only for them, but to give everyone else the impression that the game has something for everyone, from the budget players to the luxury players.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,241 ★★★★★
    Lormif said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Monk1 said:

    Demonzfyre said:

    Monk1 said:

    Lormif said:

    Monk1 said:

    I really don’t see why the new title was not awarded for 100% act 6. That makes the ‘cut line’ very simple.

    Also I’m with @TheTalents I hate wasting resources on 4* champs when I have the same as 6*, so please stop the 4* challenges!!!

    having atleast 1 r3 also makes the cut line very simple.
    It does but makes it heavily RNG reliant. I finished Act 6 in early March and have still not used the science AG and science t5cc from it.

    100% exploration removes any rng element
    Does it though? All the complaints about act 6 having champion specific fights. Isn't that RNG based as much as RNG is to getting a T5CC or 6* you want to R3?
    Act 6 was a challenge and I generally enjoyed it.. I’ve done it since the nerf and it is far too easy now. I could do it even with poor RNG is cause have grown my account for 4 years so have the counters I need.

    Personally I don’t mind the r3 requirement but feel overall what ever their next gate is with this title has set the bar too low. Hence 109% act 6 or at least 2-3 r3 6* would of been more realistic
    That contradicts making it more accessible to begin with. Which is why they moved it to Act 6 with 1 R3.
    No, it is not, they stated it was because of a change in story content not being a difficult progression anymore, not yo make it more accessible
    It was originally tied into the old Act 7. Making it more accessible is exactly what the end result is.
Sign In or Register to comment.