**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
New Paragon calendar
Demonzfyre
Posts: 21,039 ★★★★★
2%/2%/5% t5cc
8
Comments
I'm sure we have/will be waited longer to get the input issues fixed 👀👀
But overall, seems like a nice upgrade from the TB calendar.
Same goes for potions
In prefer to obtain the paragon title you need 9 of each. 20 months to obtain one of each = 60 months to obtain one additional R4, 180 months to obtain the three R4’s.
Compare that to the TB calendar providing 5%t5cc a month, the limiting resource for TB title. You could say 20 months to obtain a t5cc (but that would assume all pulled were the same class. So equal pulling of each class over the same 180 months would give you 6 R3’s, let’s half that for randomness so make it 3 fully formed t5cc, although I am sure DNA would be able to give us the statistical probability of what the most likely outcome would be (I believe it would be more likely 4).
Now you are thinking 4 R4’s vs 3-4 R3’s is perfectly reasonable, but I am comparing to the Kabam appointed requirement to obtain that progression title, at what rate the calendar would cause you to duplicate it. So the Paragon calendar would provide 1/3 of what TB calendar provides towards the limiting rank material.
Obviously progression slows, but I think doubling the amount of R4 materials would be reasonable. Even if they do a calendar refresh in 6 months time (when I think everyone would really notice the inconsequential amount).
But separate from progress tier concerns, the value of one R4 in a roster of R4s is no different from the value of one R3 in a roster of R3s. It takes the same number of R4s to "fill out" a roster as it does R3s. So having the calendar be proportional to the tier requirement would make higher progression players fill rosters *faster* relative to lower ones, which is the exact opposite of what you would ordinarily design into the progression system.
To illustrate the point, if in an extreme case for discussion purposes the next progress tier required ten rank fives, you wouldn't expect the calendar to contain ten times more rank up materials just to proportionalize that. This would obviously be broken. But if the proportionality rule is broken at ten, it is suspect at three. Proportionality rules do not suddenly break at double digits.