This isn't true Miike. A 5* rank one is 80 challenger rating and a 4* rank 4 is 90. Not the same bro.
When I tried to edit my post it went into moderator limbo and I thought it was important enough to amplify. You are correct and @Kabam Miike is incorrect: 5* rank 1 is identical to 4* rank 3, just like 4* rank 1 is equal to 3* rank 3. The logical progression should be for 6* rank 1 to be equal to 5* rank 3, or CR 100.
Yep. Looks like I read my chart wrong. Thank you for pointing that out! The Challenge Rating for 6-Stars is still correct though.
Um...so you are confirming that 6*s are out of line with the challenger rating progression of rest of the game and that's it? No justification? That makes no sense. It sounds like there is a mistake somewhere. Some follow up would be helpful.
Well, if I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's so that the progression is not as extreme. Presumably they will have Base Stats that are higher than 5*s. Which is fair considering one of the biggest concerns was using existing Champs and how they might become obsolete.
What? That’s what they’re doing, the challenger rating is higher than it should be, more than if it followed a steady progression.
I misunderstood the argument. I thought it was that the CR was too low. Actually, it's on par with the progression. Having a 6* R1 be equal to a 4* R5 wouldn't make sense at all. Since 5* R3 equals 4* R5. Having a 5* R4 equal a 6* R1 is logical.
Oh great, it's grounded wisdom again. This thread will now be officially hijacked. Always going against the majority of the user base with his comments. Guess I'm done with this thread.
One last comment though, it's not on par with the progression bro. A 5* 4/55 should not have the same CR as a 6* rank 1. Your logic is nonexistent. But then again, your doing your usual thing.
We both know you won't quit. Maybe you will quit with your tirade, but you won't quit being a merc and collecting money from whales to play arena, Labyrinth and other game modes.
This isn't true Miike. A 5* rank one is 80 challenger rating and a 4* rank 4 is 90. Not the same bro.
When I tried to edit my post it went into moderator limbo and I thought it was important enough to amplify. You are correct and @Kabam Miike is incorrect: 5* rank 1 is identical to 4* rank 3, just like 4* rank 1 is equal to 3* rank 3. The logical progression should be for 6* rank 1 to be equal to 5* rank 3, or CR 100.
Yep. Looks like I read my chart wrong. Thank you for pointing that out! The Challenge Rating for 6-Stars is still correct though.
Um...so you are confirming that 6*s are out of line with the challenger rating progression of rest of the game and that's it? No justification? That makes no sense. It sounds like there is a mistake somewhere. Some follow up would be helpful.
Well, if I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's so that the progression is not as extreme. Presumably they will have Base Stats that are higher than 5*s. Which is fair considering one of the biggest concerns was using existing Champs and how they might become obsolete.
What? That’s what they’re doing, the challenger rating is higher than it should be, more than if it followed a steady progression.
I misunderstood the argument. I thought it was that the CR was too low. Actually, it's on par with the progression. Having a 6* R1 be equal to a 4* R5 wouldn't make sense at all. Since 5* R3 equals 4* R5. Having a 5* R4 equal a 6* R1 is logical.
@GroundedWisdom read through the thread. It's not on par with the progression, that's the point and Miike just confirmed it. Initially he stated that the 6* CR was in line with 3* to 4* and 4* to 5*. Several people pointed out that this is incorrect and that the CR for 6*s are out of line with the rest of the game. Miike just confirmed that his initial statement was incorrect and that they are actually out of line.
The question that needs to be answered is if 6*s are out of line with the logical progression by design, and if so, why? or if this is a mistake that will be corrected.
This isn't true Miike. A 5* rank one is 80 challenger rating and a 4* rank 4 is 90. Not the same bro.
When I tried to edit my post it went into moderator limbo and I thought it was important enough to amplify. You are correct and @Kabam Miike is incorrect: 5* rank 1 is identical to 4* rank 3, just like 4* rank 1 is equal to 3* rank 3. The logical progression should be for 6* rank 1 to be equal to 5* rank 3, or CR 100.
Yep. Looks like I read my chart wrong. Thank you for pointing that out! The Challenge Rating for 6-Stars is still correct though.
Um...so you are confirming that 6*s are out of line with the challenger rating progression of rest of the game and that's it? No justification? That makes no sense. It sounds like there is a mistake somewhere. Some follow up would be helpful.
Well, if I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's so that the progression is not as extreme. Presumably they will have Base Stats that are higher than 5*s. Which is fair considering one of the biggest concerns was using existing Champs and how they might become obsolete.
What? That’s what they’re doing, the challenger rating is higher than it should be, more than if it followed a steady progression.
I misunderstood the argument. I thought it was that the CR was too low. Actually, it's on par with the progression. Having a 6* R1 be equal to a 4* R5 wouldn't make sense at all. Since 5* R3 equals 4* R5. Having a 5* R4 equal a 6* R1 is logical.
Oh great, it's grounded wisdom again. This thread will now be officially hijacked. Always going against the majority of the user base with his comments. Guess I'm done with this thread.
One last comment though, it's not on par with the progression bro. A 5* 4/55 should not have the same CR as a 6* rank 1. Your logic is nonexistent. But then again, your doing your usual thing.
We both know you won't quit. Maybe you will quit with your tirade, but you won't quit being a merc and collecting money from whales to play arena, Labyrinth and other game modes.
Wow. Throwing allegations around now dude. A merc?? Lol. Grow up bro.
This isn't true Miike. A 5* rank one is 80 challenger rating and a 4* rank 4 is 90. Not the same bro.
When I tried to edit my post it went into moderator limbo and I thought it was important enough to amplify. You are correct and @Kabam Miike is incorrect: 5* rank 1 is identical to 4* rank 3, just like 4* rank 1 is equal to 3* rank 3. The logical progression should be for 6* rank 1 to be equal to 5* rank 3, or CR 100.
Yep. Looks like I read my chart wrong. Thank you for pointing that out! The Challenge Rating for 6-Stars is still correct though.
Um...so you are confirming that 6*s are out of line with the challenger rating progression of rest of the game and that's it? No justification? That makes no sense. It sounds like there is a mistake somewhere. Some follow up would be helpful.
Well, if I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's so that the progression is not as extreme. Presumably they will have Base Stats that are higher than 5*s. Which is fair considering one of the biggest concerns was using existing Champs and how they might become obsolete.
What? That’s what they’re doing, the challenger rating is higher than it should be, more than if it followed a steady progression.
I misunderstood the argument. I thought it was that the CR was too low. Actually, it's on par with the progression. Having a 6* R1 be equal to a 4* R5 wouldn't make sense at all. Since 5* R3 equals 4* R5. Having a 5* R4 equal a 6* R1 is logical.
Oh great, it's grounded wisdom again. This thread will now be officially hijacked. Always going against the majority of the user base with his comments. Guess I'm done with this thread.
One last comment though, it's not on par with the progression bro. A 5* 4/55 should not have the same CR as a 6* rank 1. Your logic is nonexistent. But then again, your doing your usual thing.
We both know you won't quit. Maybe you will quit with your tirade, but you won't quit being a merc and collecting money from whales to play arena, Labyrinth and other game modes.
Wow. Throwing allegations around now dude. A merc?? Lol. Grow up bro.
This isn't true Miike. A 5* rank one is 80 challenger rating and a 4* rank 4 is 90. Not the same bro.
When I tried to edit my post it went into moderator limbo and I thought it was important enough to amplify. You are correct and @Kabam Miike is incorrect: 5* rank 1 is identical to 4* rank 3, just like 4* rank 1 is equal to 3* rank 3. The logical progression should be for 6* rank 1 to be equal to 5* rank 3, or CR 100.
Yep. Looks like I read my chart wrong. Thank you for pointing that out! The Challenge Rating for 6-Stars is still correct though.
Um...so you are confirming that 6*s are out of line with the challenger rating progression of rest of the game and that's it? No justification? That makes no sense. It sounds like there is a mistake somewhere. Some follow up would be helpful.
Well, if I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's so that the progression is not as extreme. Presumably they will have Base Stats that are higher than 5*s. Which is fair considering one of the biggest concerns was using existing Champs and how they might become obsolete.
What? That’s what they’re doing, the challenger rating is higher than it should be, more than if it followed a steady progression.
I misunderstood the argument. I thought it was that the CR was too low. Actually, it's on par with the progression. Having a 6* R1 be equal to a 4* R5 wouldn't make sense at all. Since 5* R3 equals 4* R5. Having a 5* R4 equal a 6* R1 is logical.
@GroundedWisdom read through the thread. It's not on par with the progression, that's the point and Miike just confirmed it. Initially he stated that the 6* CR was in line with 3* to 4* and 4* to 5*. Several people pointed out that this is incorrect and that the CR for 6*s are out of line with the rest of the game. Miike just confirmed that his initial statement was incorrect and that they are actually out of line.
When I said progression, I meant in terms of the progression of the game. First, if we look at it logically, one CR difference is not a major effect. As per the Thread explaining CR. Secondly, 6*s are going to add a new level of challenge. There would be somewhat diminished value and effectiveness if they had the same CR at R1 as a 4* at R5. The effect would be minimal regardless because you could still use a 4* to fight them. The effects would be slightly reduced. Keep in mind, that those metrics are for a 5* R4. Once we hit R5, that increases. Then the 6* is one CR below. What I'm saying is the overall progression makes sense to me because there has to be a level of challenge to it. Naturally, we don't glide through 5* content with a 3* Max. We can try, if we want added difficulty. If it is supposed to be in line with the rest of CR progression, fair enough. However, I could see the justification in making it one level higher. It's not really meant to be the same level as the current content is my guess, unless you're using the highest value. (5* R4)
This isn't true Miike. A 5* rank one is 80 challenger rating and a 4* rank 4 is 90. Not the same bro.
When I tried to edit my post it went into moderator limbo and I thought it was important enough to amplify. You are correct and @Kabam Miike is incorrect: 5* rank 1 is identical to 4* rank 3, just like 4* rank 1 is equal to 3* rank 3. The logical progression should be for 6* rank 1 to be equal to 5* rank 3, or CR 100.
Yep. Looks like I read my chart wrong. Thank you for pointing that out! The Challenge Rating for 6-Stars is still correct though.
Um...so you are confirming that 6*s are out of line with the challenger rating progression of rest of the game and that's it? No justification? That makes no sense. It sounds like there is a mistake somewhere. Some follow up would be helpful.
Well, if I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's so that the progression is not as extreme. Presumably they will have Base Stats that are higher than 5*s. Which is fair considering one of the biggest concerns was using existing Champs and how they might become obsolete.
What? That’s what they’re doing, the challenger rating is higher than it should be, more than if it followed a steady progression.
I misunderstood the argument. I thought it was that the CR was too low. Actually, it's on par with the progression. Having a 6* R1 be equal to a 4* R5 wouldn't make sense at all. Since 5* R3 equals 4* R5. Having a 5* R4 equal a 6* R1 is logical.
@GroundedWisdom read through the thread. It's not on par with the progression, that's the point and Miike just confirmed it. Initially he stated that the 6* CR was in line with 3* to 4* and 4* to 5*. Several people pointed out that this is incorrect and that the CR for 6*s are out of line with the rest of the game. Miike just confirmed that his initial statement was incorrect and that they are actually out of line.
When I said progression, I meant in terms of the progression of the game. First, if we look at it logically, one CR difference is not a major effect. As per the Thread explaining CR. Secondly, 6*s are going to add a new level of challenge. There would be somewhat diminished value and effectiveness if they had the same CR at R1 as a 4* at R5. The effect would be minimal regardless because you could still use a 4* to fight them. The effects would be slightly reduced. Keep in mind, that those metrics are for a 5* R4. Once we hit R5, that increases. Then the 6* is one CR below. What I'm saying is the overall progression makes sense to me because there has to be a level of challenge to it. Naturally, we don't glide through 5* content with a 3* Max. We can try, if we want added difficulty. If it is supposed to be in line with the rest of CR progression, fair enough. However, I could see the justification in making it one level higher. It's not really meant to be the same level as the current content is my guess, unless you're using the highest value. (5* R4)
There is a logical progression for every star level in the game and then six stars come along and they are out of line with every other step up the latter. There may be a good reason for it. I'd like to hear it from a Mod if there is one. Or it may be an error. But to say it's the logical progression of the game when it clearly isn't makes no sense. You usually at least make some sense even when I disagree with you lol.
This isn't true Miike. A 5* rank one is 80 challenger rating and a 4* rank 4 is 90. Not the same bro.
When I tried to edit my post it went into moderator limbo and I thought it was important enough to amplify. You are correct and @Kabam Miike is incorrect: 5* rank 1 is identical to 4* rank 3, just like 4* rank 1 is equal to 3* rank 3. The logical progression should be for 6* rank 1 to be equal to 5* rank 3, or CR 100.
Yep. Looks like I read my chart wrong. Thank you for pointing that out! The Challenge Rating for 6-Stars is still correct though.
Um...so you are confirming that 6*s are out of line with the challenger rating progression of rest of the game and that's it? No justification? That makes no sense. It sounds like there is a mistake somewhere. Some follow up would be helpful.
Well, if I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's so that the progression is not as extreme. Presumably they will have Base Stats that are higher than 5*s. Which is fair considering one of the biggest concerns was using existing Champs and how they might become obsolete.
What? That’s what they’re doing, the challenger rating is higher than it should be, more than if it followed a steady progression.
I misunderstood the argument. I thought it was that the CR was too low. Actually, it's on par with the progression. Having a 6* R1 be equal to a 4* R5 wouldn't make sense at all. Since 5* R3 equals 4* R5. Having a 5* R4 equal a 6* R1 is logical.
@GroundedWisdom read through the thread. It's not on par with the progression, that's the point and Miike just confirmed it. Initially he stated that the 6* CR was in line with 3* to 4* and 4* to 5*. Several people pointed out that this is incorrect and that the CR for 6*s are out of line with the rest of the game. Miike just confirmed that his initial statement was incorrect and that they are actually out of line.
When I said progression, I meant in terms of the progression of the game. First, if we look at it logically, one CR difference is not a major effect. As per the Thread explaining CR. Secondly, 6*s are going to add a new level of challenge. There would be somewhat diminished value and effectiveness if they had the same CR at R1 as a 4* at R5. The effect would be minimal regardless because you could still use a 4* to fight them. The effects would be slightly reduced. Keep in mind, that those metrics are for a 5* R4. Once we hit R5, that increases. Then the 6* is one CR below. What I'm saying is the overall progression makes sense to me because there has to be a level of challenge to it. Naturally, we don't glide through 5* content with a 3* Max. We can try, if we want added difficulty. If it is supposed to be in line with the rest of CR progression, fair enough. However, I could see the justification in making it one level higher. It's not really meant to be the same level as the current content is my guess, unless you're using the highest value. (5* R4)
There is a logical progression for every star level in the game and then six stars come along and they are out of line with every other step up the latter. There may be a good reason for it. I'd like to hear it from a Mod if there is one. Or it may be an error. But to say it's the logical progression of the game when it clearly isn't makes no sense. You usually at least make some sense even when I disagree with you lol.
I apologize if I never explained my logic clearly enough, but it makes sense to me. We're not going to clear 6*s with a 4* Max as easily as with a 5*.
Well of course that's the case. Just like we don't clear 5* content with 3*s as easily as with 4*s. That does nothing to explain why the challenger rating for 6*s doesn't follow the logical progression up the latter.
The discussion about how big of a difference CR makes is moot right now. The whole point of this challenge is to answer that question and see how much CR affects gameplay. So argue in another week about it once players get a chance to see what fighting a giant CR feels like.
How does this make sense? If 6*s did follow the logical progression your statement about clearing content would still be true. Therefore it fails to explain why they are out of line. Like I said there may be a good explanation for it but this isn't it. It would be nice if a mod would comment.
The discussion about how big of a difference CR makes is moot right now. The whole point of this challenge is to answer that question and see how much CR affects gameplay. So argue in another week about it once players get a chance to see what fighting a giant CR feels like.
It'll feel just like facing a rank 4 5* vs a maxed out 3* lol. We already know how it's going to be.
How does this make sense? If 6*s did follow the logical progression your statement about clearing content would still be true. Like I said there may be a good explanation for it but this isn't it. It would be nice if a mod would comment.
All I'm saying is that's my understanding. May not make sense to some. I will wait for more information as well.
This isn't true Miike. A 5* rank one is 80 challenger rating and a 4* rank 4 is 90. Not the same bro.
When I tried to edit my post it went into moderator limbo and I thought it was important enough to amplify. You are correct and @Kabam Miike is incorrect: 5* rank 1 is identical to 4* rank 3, just like 4* rank 1 is equal to 3* rank 3. The logical progression should be for 6* rank 1 to be equal to 5* rank 3, or CR 100.
Yep. Looks like I read my chart wrong. Thank you for pointing that out! The Challenge Rating for 6-Stars is still correct though.
Um...so you are confirming that 6*s are out of line with the challenger rating progression of rest of the game and that's it? No justification? That makes no sense. It sounds like there is a mistake somewhere. Some follow up would be helpful.
Well, if I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's so that the progression is not as extreme. Presumably they will have Base Stats that are higher than 5*s. Which is fair considering one of the biggest concerns was using existing Champs and how they might become obsolete.
What? That’s what they’re doing, the challenger rating is higher than it should be, more than if it followed a steady progression.
I misunderstood the argument. I thought it was that the CR was too low. Actually, it's on par with the progression. Having a 6* R1 be equal to a 4* R5 wouldn't make sense at all. Since 5* R3 equals 4* R5. Having a 5* R4 equal a 6* R1 is logical.
Too busy blindly agreeing with and defending everything Kabam does to read the argument.
This isn't true Miike. A 5* rank one is 80 challenger rating and a 4* rank 4 is 90. Not the same bro.
When I tried to edit my post it went into moderator limbo and I thought it was important enough to amplify. You are correct and @Kabam Miike is incorrect: 5* rank 1 is identical to 4* rank 3, just like 4* rank 1 is equal to 3* rank 3. The logical progression should be for 6* rank 1 to be equal to 5* rank 3, or CR 100.
Yep. Looks like I read my chart wrong. Thank you for pointing that out! The Challenge Rating for 6-Stars is still correct though.
Um...so you are confirming that 6*s are out of line with the challenger rating progression of rest of the game and that's it? No justification? That makes no sense. It sounds like there is a mistake somewhere. Some follow up would be helpful.
Well, if I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's so that the progression is not as extreme. Presumably they will have Base Stats that are higher than 5*s. Which is fair considering one of the biggest concerns was using existing Champs and how they might become obsolete.
What? That’s what they’re doing, the challenger rating is higher than it should be, more than if it followed a steady progression.
I misunderstood the argument. I thought it was that the CR was too low. Actually, it's on par with the progression. Having a 6* R1 be equal to a 4* R5 wouldn't make sense at all. Since 5* R3 equals 4* R5. Having a 5* R4 equal a 6* R1 is logical.
@GroundedWisdom read through the thread. It's not on par with the progression, that's the point and Miike just confirmed it. Initially he stated that the 6* CR was in line with 3* to 4* and 4* to 5*. Several people pointed out that this is incorrect and that the CR for 6*s are out of line with the rest of the game. Miike just confirmed that his initial statement was incorrect and that they are actually out of line.
When I said progression, I meant in terms of the progression of the game. First, if we look at it logically, one CR difference is not a major effect. As per the Thread explaining CR. Secondly, 6*s are going to add a new level of challenge. There would be somewhat diminished value and effectiveness if they had the same CR at R1 as a 4* at R5. The effect would be minimal regardless because you could still use a 4* to fight them. The effects would be slightly reduced. Keep in mind, that those metrics are for a 5* R4. Once we hit R5, that increases. Then the 6* is one CR below. What I'm saying is the overall progression makes sense to me because there has to be a level of challenge to it. Naturally, we don't glide through 5* content with a 3* Max. We can try, if we want added difficulty. If it is supposed to be in line with the rest of CR progression, fair enough. However, I could see the justification in making it one level higher. It's not really meant to be the same level as the current content is my guess, unless you're using the highest value. (5* R4)
There is a logical progression for every star level in the game and then six stars come along and they are out of line with every other step up the latter. There may be a good reason for it. I'd like to hear it from a Mod if there is one. Or it may be an error. But to say it's the logical progression of the game when it clearly isn't makes no sense. You usually at least make some sense even when I disagree with you lol.
I apologize if I never explained my logic clearly enough, but it makes sense to me. We're not going to clear 6*s with a 4* Max as easily as with a 5*.
The jump from a max 4* to rank 4 5* is pretty high. To have a 6* come in as strong as a r4 5* without requiring it to even be ranked up at least once is illogical based on progression and scarcity of resources. Every other rarity moves up at a consistent rate. To release 6* champs that come out of the box as strong as a champ you have put 10 t4b, 7 t4c, 20+ t1a and 4 t2a is not a logical progression. Hopefully I'm wrong and it's just a higher challenger rating while the stats follow the traditional order, but if not it's going to open a big can of worms and create a bigger separation between vets and beginners and between the 1% and the rest. There are people who will be opening multiple 6*s when they come out. This really needs to be clarified.
I don't understand how this is so complicated, but let's try again.
The difference in challenge rating between each star level should be proportional. Period.
So the question is, why aren't they now with 6*?
Whoever said they "should" be? I don't wanna debate this but just because the developers have done things in the past doesn't mean those ways are set in stone.
Who knows how this relates to future content years from now. May end up being happy about that CR being higher at some point.
Miike said it was correct but it wouldn't be the first time correct turned out to be wrong lol. If it is the intention of the developers to have 6*s be out of line with the progression of the rest of the game there should be an explanation. I'm sure a lot of us could be convinced that it makes sense if there is a good reason for it. But it looks like an error, especially given the previous claim that it was analogous to the jump from 4*s to 5*s.
I don't understand how this is so complicated, but let's try again.
The difference in challenge rating between each star level should be proportional. Period.
So the question is, why aren't they now with 6*?
Whoever said they "should" be? I don't wanna debate this but just because the developers have done things in the past doesn't mean those ways are set in stone.
Who knows how this relates to future content years from now. May end up being happy about that CR being higher at some point.
Nobody said it should be other than the official announcement stating it was going to follow the progression once the CR was questioned. That's what the current uproar is about, saying one thing but then doing another.
The 6* CR is clearly NOT following the current CR progression. If it was then a 6* rank 1 would have a CR equivalent to a 5* rank 3.
I don't understand how this is so complicated, but let's try again.
The difference in challenge rating between each star level should be proportional. Period.
So the question is, why aren't they now with 6*?
Whoever said they "should" be? I don't wanna debate this but just because the developers have done things in the past doesn't mean those ways are set in stone.
Who knows how this relates to future content years from now. May end up being happy about that CR being higher at some point.
Nobody said it should be other than the official announcement stating it was going to follow the progression once the CR was questioned. That's what the current uproar is about, saying one thing but then doing another.
The 6* CR is clearly NOT following the current CR progression. If it was then a 6* rank 1 would have a CR equivalent to a 5* rank 3.
The user I quoted did say it should be. Which is why I quoted them and asked the question.
Obviously its not following traditional patterns, I'm not arguing that. But as someone else just mentioned, wait for an explanation from Kabam instead of fighting each other over a bunch of assumptions and opinions. And its possible Miike made a 2nd mistake in this thread.
Challenger Rating:
Since 6-Star Champions are new to the game, this also seems like the best time to let you all know what the Challenger Rating of each Rank of a 6-Star will be:
In comparison, a Rank 5 4-Star has a Challenger Rating of 100, while a Rank 4 5-Star has a Challenger Rating of 110.
Boss Rush arrives on October 18th! Prepare yourself Summoner![/color]
Is it just me or is the challenger rating on a 6* really aggressive. The current top champs in the game are r4 5* and they'll be outclassed by a r2 6*?
This aligns with the Challenger Rating progression throughout the entire system. A 5-Star Rank 1 has the same as a 4-Star Rank 4, and a 4-Star Rank 1 has the same as a 3-Star Rank 3.
This is where Miike said it would align with the existing progression. This is how challenger rating was in 12.0, then in 13 they changed it to where it is now.
I just think it's odd that with all talk about transparency and communication, after many posts pointing out the error in the statement about 6*s the only response is "Thank you for pointing that out, you are correct!" and then crickets. How about a reasons will be forthcoming post, or a we are checking with the game team post? 6*s have generated a lot of controversy and it would seem that the CR issue would warrant some additional explanation or clarification.
I don't understand how this is so complicated, but let's try again.
The difference in challenge rating between each star level should be proportional. Period.
So the question is, why aren't they now with 6*?
Whoever said they "should" be? I don't wanna debate this but just because the developers have done things in the past doesn't mean those ways are set in stone.
Who knows how this relates to future content years from now. May end up being happy about that CR being higher at some point.
Because that's the pattern they established and it overvalues 6* champions as compared to 5* and relative to the difference in rating of other champion star levels.
They rebalanced so there would be this kind of standard increase earlier this year, and now they're breaking the pattern for some, as yet unknown reason. I grant there might be one, but at this point there has been no justification for it. Hence, based on what we know about star tier relationships and challenge rating, 6* currently don't fit that pattern.
I don't disagree and I'm not opposing a single argument in this thread.
All I'm pointing out is that everything we think is as it should be always changes. 12.0 changed everything as we thought it "should" be. If not for that big change this conversation of challenger rating wouldn't exist. Than AW changed and we have a 1million page thread arguing this isn't as it "should" be. Now this?
So many changes keep happening and while we are left in the dark waiting for answers we choose to bicker, debate, and fight other players over opinions.
So many changes keep happening and while we are left in the dark waiting for answers we choose to bicker, debate, and fight other players over opinions.
This is exactly what bothers me so much. First we get the announcement of 6*s entering (good or bad) and no details otherwise (bad). Then they announce this challenge with 6*s (good) but they won't have actual 6* mechanics (bad). While announcing the challenge, we find out the CR of 6*s does not follow the linear pattern of ANY champions tiers ever before (wtf), with no explanation.
Assuming the increased base stats and the ability to recover health, they will easily surpass 5*s in prestige once duped even at a low level. They will not even need to be ranked up to do this, unlike 5*s who needed to be duped and you needed to get through the Labyrinth to achieve having many of them at rank 4? You're automatically devaluing that content right out of the box, and basically telling everyone who did 100% it that they are out of luck once people start getting 6*s. Are they going to have signature limits of 400 also? Is this how we control the power spike that is going to be inevitable?
Now it feels like we are going back to the 12.0 fiasco all over again. I thought we learned from this? While there is nothing wrong with changing the game, it is really incredibly odd to continually fail to have provided this type of information upfront. If a rank 1 6* is worth a rank 4 5*, it basically throws a lot of progress out the window for many people.
I dunno how valid the feedback from this event will actually be with the Adrenaline mechanic being disabled. This just seems like an opportunity to test CR yet again and see if we think it's enough to "put up" with. But hey, it's only 6 fights against some rank 4 5*s, so I'll do it? Whatever lessons you do learn, you should actually share with the playerbase under the long-promised and often undelivered upon guise of transparency.
That lack of communication makes this place quite toxic, some of it our own fault. Maybe the forum workers as moderators don't know all the answers and just have to deal with us. Maybe Cav or whoever else should do another post explaining to us how you all as a game team thought this would be a good change. Try to sell us on something for once instead of just saying, "it is what it is".
PS. And there needs to be a 6* Joe Fixit in the initial batch of 6* champs
PSS. And there needs to be an "ignore" function on this forum and a button like the old forum to skip to moderator responses
Comments
We both know you won't quit. Maybe you will quit with your tirade, but you won't quit being a merc and collecting money from whales to play arena, Labyrinth and other game modes.
@GroundedWisdom read through the thread. It's not on par with the progression, that's the point and Miike just confirmed it. Initially he stated that the 6* CR was in line with 3* to 4* and 4* to 5*. Several people pointed out that this is incorrect and that the CR for 6*s are out of line with the rest of the game. Miike just confirmed that his initial statement was incorrect and that they are actually out of line.
Wow. Throwing allegations around now dude. A merc?? Lol. Grow up bro.
.
When I said progression, I meant in terms of the progression of the game. First, if we look at it logically, one CR difference is not a major effect. As per the Thread explaining CR. Secondly, 6*s are going to add a new level of challenge. There would be somewhat diminished value and effectiveness if they had the same CR at R1 as a 4* at R5. The effect would be minimal regardless because you could still use a 4* to fight them. The effects would be slightly reduced. Keep in mind, that those metrics are for a 5* R4. Once we hit R5, that increases. Then the 6* is one CR below. What I'm saying is the overall progression makes sense to me because there has to be a level of challenge to it. Naturally, we don't glide through 5* content with a 3* Max. We can try, if we want added difficulty. If it is supposed to be in line with the rest of CR progression, fair enough. However, I could see the justification in making it one level higher. It's not really meant to be the same level as the current content is my guess, unless you're using the highest value. (5* R4)
There is a logical progression for every star level in the game and then six stars come along and they are out of line with every other step up the latter. There may be a good reason for it. I'd like to hear it from a Mod if there is one. Or it may be an error. But to say it's the logical progression of the game when it clearly isn't makes no sense. You usually at least make some sense even when I disagree with you lol.
I apologize if I never explained my logic clearly enough, but it makes sense to me. We're not going to clear 6*s with a 4* Max as easily as with a 5*.
How does this make sense? If 6*s did follow the logical progression your statement about clearing content would still be true. Therefore it fails to explain why they are out of line. Like I said there may be a good explanation for it but this isn't it. It would be nice if a mod would comment.
All I'm saying is that's my understanding. May not make sense to some. I will wait for more information as well.
Too busy blindly agreeing with and defending everything Kabam does to read the argument.
The jump from a max 4* to rank 4 5* is pretty high. To have a 6* come in as strong as a r4 5* without requiring it to even be ranked up at least once is illogical based on progression and scarcity of resources. Every other rarity moves up at a consistent rate. To release 6* champs that come out of the box as strong as a champ you have put 10 t4b, 7 t4c, 20+ t1a and 4 t2a is not a logical progression. Hopefully I'm wrong and it's just a higher challenger rating while the stats follow the traditional order, but if not it's going to open a big can of worms and create a bigger separation between vets and beginners and between the 1% and the rest. There are people who will be opening multiple 6*s when they come out. This really needs to be clarified.
I'll wait till after the 6* event to make a solid opinion on them. They will be expecting our feedback on it at that time.
Whoever said they "should" be? I don't wanna debate this but just because the developers have done things in the past doesn't mean those ways are set in stone.
Who knows how this relates to future content years from now. May end up being happy about that CR being higher at some point.
Nobody said it should be other than the official announcement stating it was going to follow the progression once the CR was questioned. That's what the current uproar is about, saying one thing but then doing another.
The 6* CR is clearly NOT following the current CR progression. If it was then a 6* rank 1 would have a CR equivalent to a 5* rank 3.
The user I quoted did say it should be. Which is why I quoted them and asked the question.
Obviously its not following traditional patterns, I'm not arguing that. But as someone else just mentioned, wait for an explanation from Kabam instead of fighting each other over a bunch of assumptions and opinions. And its possible Miike made a 2nd mistake in this thread.
This is where Miike said it would align with the existing progression. This is how challenger rating was in 12.0, then in 13 they changed it to where it is now.
All I'm pointing out is that everything we think is as it should be always changes. 12.0 changed everything as we thought it "should" be. If not for that big change this conversation of challenger rating wouldn't exist. Than AW changed and we have a 1million page thread arguing this isn't as it "should" be. Now this?
So many changes keep happening and while we are left in the dark waiting for answers we choose to bicker, debate, and fight other players over opinions.
This is exactly what bothers me so much. First we get the announcement of 6*s entering (good or bad) and no details otherwise (bad). Then they announce this challenge with 6*s (good) but they won't have actual 6* mechanics (bad). While announcing the challenge, we find out the CR of 6*s does not follow the linear pattern of ANY champions tiers ever before (wtf), with no explanation.
Assuming the increased base stats and the ability to recover health, they will easily surpass 5*s in prestige once duped even at a low level. They will not even need to be ranked up to do this, unlike 5*s who needed to be duped and you needed to get through the Labyrinth to achieve having many of them at rank 4? You're automatically devaluing that content right out of the box, and basically telling everyone who did 100% it that they are out of luck once people start getting 6*s. Are they going to have signature limits of 400 also? Is this how we control the power spike that is going to be inevitable?
Now it feels like we are going back to the 12.0 fiasco all over again. I thought we learned from this? While there is nothing wrong with changing the game, it is really incredibly odd to continually fail to have provided this type of information upfront. If a rank 1 6* is worth a rank 4 5*, it basically throws a lot of progress out the window for many people.
I dunno how valid the feedback from this event will actually be with the Adrenaline mechanic being disabled. This just seems like an opportunity to test CR yet again and see if we think it's enough to "put up" with. But hey, it's only 6 fights against some rank 4 5*s, so I'll do it? Whatever lessons you do learn, you should actually share with the playerbase under the long-promised and often undelivered upon guise of transparency.
That lack of communication makes this place quite toxic, some of it our own fault. Maybe the forum workers as moderators don't know all the answers and just have to deal with us. Maybe Cav or whoever else should do another post explaining to us how you all as a game team thought this would be a good change. Try to sell us on something for once instead of just saying, "it is what it is".
PS. And there needs to be a 6* Joe Fixit in the initial batch of 6* champs
PSS. And there needs to be an "ignore" function on this forum and a button like the old forum to skip to moderator responses