Honest question about future of MCOC

What would you do if 7 stars comes to the game? What do you think about the future of MCOC?

Comments

7 stars, yep, I'll get me some shards.
Relics, sounds like a good way to introduce even more nerfing into the game.
Increasingly powerful champs each month, as long as the buff program gets a leg up.

Based on how I feel about the game right now, and have felt for some time, I don't really care what comes next, as long as I can keep playing in some capacity.

It's been a long time since a game has captured me in this way and for this long.
SW:TOR
GTAO
MCoC...

TrapKill66

I’ve said it before ….

I’d rather play MCoC 2 with a new game engine than deal with 7*s and/or relics.

This is something I had not considered until reading your post. Thanks. It's currently a very appealing idea.

OmegaMan

This is arbitrary, tet for tat, really.
The bottom line is acquiring and Ranking Champions is what the game is all about. There is no end-game Roster.

That’s your opinion, but others have their own. The game isn’t the same for everyone. This thread proves that.

OmegaMan

Yes, not everyone can grind arena. Yes, not everyone can purchase selector crystals. But those limitations were just as true when it came to 5* champions: not everyone could save up tons of shards to use on OG featured crystals: that was just as exclusive of a game then as some options are now. The "meta" (which is not a meta) of collecting champions has changed dramatically, and continues to change. People saying nothing changes except the number of champions to collect simply haven't been paying attention to the game for the last four years.

And that’s your opinion which you are entitled to. Yes it is 100% more difficult to get champions you don’t have today than three years ago. That’s simple math and odds.

1 out of 100 is much easier to obtain than 1 out of 200. That’s factual and not opinion.

GroundedWisdom

This is arbitrary, tet for tat, really.
The bottom line is acquiring and Ranking Champions is what the game is all about. There is no end-game Roster.
That’s your opinion, but others have their own. The game isn’t the same for everyone. This thread proves that.

That's not my opinion. It's the history of the game.

Kiptonade

Or if 7 stars are inevitable there sure be a way to upgrade an r5 6* champion into a 7* but you could just argue it would be easier to have 6* go to rank 10

phillgreen

Maybe by the time the next rarity is released I might have duped my 5* starlord who I first pulled about 3 million 5* shards ago.

Until content is released that a halfway decent player cant do with 5/65 max sig or 6r3, there is no reason to add another rarity apart from greed.

There's an old saying, you can shear a sheep a bunch of times but you can only skin it once.

DNA3000

Yes, not everyone can grind arena. Yes, not everyone can purchase selector crystals. But those limitations were just as true when it came to 5* champions: not everyone could save up tons of shards to use on OG featured crystals: that was just as exclusive of a game then as some options are now. The "meta" (which is not a meta) of collecting champions has changed dramatically, and continues to change. People saying nothing changes except the number of champions to collect simply haven't been paying attention to the game for the last four years.

And that’s your opinion which you are entitled to. Yes it is 100% more difficult to get champions you don’t have today than three years ago. That’s simple math and odds.

1 out of 100 is much easier to obtain than 1 out of 200. That’s factual and not opinion.

If you're going to bring math and odds into it, no one has a one out of a 200 chance to acquire anything. The odds of acquiring a champ depend on the odds of the champ appearing in the crystals and the number of crystals opened. Talking about the number of champions that exist alone without context is mathematically fraudulent.

I don't play more now than I did when 6* champs first arrived. I don't grind more, or spend more. However, my rate of acquisition is much higher. The only thing that could change the rate of acquisition is the game itself changing. So clearly, the number of champs that exist is not having a deleterious impact on me.

Now, I'm just one player. Different players might be experiencing different things. But it only takes one counter-example to prove an assertion false. If the game was intrinsically making it harder to acquire new champions, this increased difficulty should affect everyone who doesn't act to counteract that change with more effort. Simple math says the acquisition difficulty cannot be intrinsically increasing. QED.

DNA3000

Maybe by the time the next rarity is released I might have duped my 5* starlord who I first pulled about 3 million 5* shards ago.

Until content is released that a halfway decent player cant do with 5/65 max sig or 6r3, there is no reason to add another rarity apart from greed.

There's an old saying, you can shear a sheep a bunch of times but you can only skin it once.

There are lots of reasons. They keep getting mentioned, but not acknowledged. Which is probably why Kabam doesn't tend to officially weigh in on this subject often. It is basically arguing the color of the sky. That would be pointless. Everyone who wants to know, knows. Everyone who stubbornly refuses to accept the truth, can't be persuaded.

Plus, the assertion itself is false. There is a huge gap between "possible" and "comfortable." For example, when Map 6 was upgraded, I was doing path 1 with 5/65s. It was *possible* but extremely difficult and costly. There was no margin for error, and it was costing me more glory than I was earning. I specifically ranked up champs to deal with that path, because I was doing it day after day after day and anything that could make that easier was well worth it.

I suspect 99.9% of all the players of this game, if not more, fall into the category where the whole "if it is possible with 5/65, there's no reason for R4s to exist" literally makes no sense to them at all, because they see no relevance to their gameplay. The idea that everything is either doable or not doable, and if it is doable that's all there is, is something that is completely detached from how they make rank up decisions.

Also, I'm not ashamed to admit that if someone defines "halfway decent" as "can do all the content in the game with 5/65s" then I hopelessly suck at this game. And I suspect that at least 99% of everyone else does too. It is fair to say that the one thing I'm not afraid of is 99% of the players of the game being on the wrong side of development history. And I'm with them.

phillgreen

In all honesty, it wont matter to me at all either way but I do think Kabam need to be a lot more careful this time.

DNA3000

In all honesty, it wont matter to me at all either way but I do think Kabam need to be a lot more careful this time.

They are clearly thinking about doing something different. Whether players interpret that as being careful will probably be highly subjective.

OmegaMan

If you're going to bring math and odds into it, no one has a one out of a 200 chance to acquire anything. The odds of acquiring a champ depend on the odds of the champ appearing in the crystals and the number of crystals opened. Talking about the number of champions that exist alone without context is mathematically fraudulent.

Again we can agree to disagree.

A larger pool of unique champions, rocks, playing cards, or anything makes it harder to obtain all unique items. There is no way around that fact.

And it really doesn’t matter because if 7* champions entered the game I will in fact be done. End of story. I know Kabam or anyone else dont care and that’s fine, but I was stating my action if that occurs.

SHIELD4AGENT

enjoy the moment, live for the moment and stop worrying about the future.
applies to both game and real life, you keep worrying about the end/death that you forgot to cherish the things that matters most in life and in game.

DNA3000

If you're going to bring math and odds into it, no one has a one out of a 200 chance to acquire anything. The odds of acquiring a champ depend on the odds of the champ appearing in the crystals and the number of crystals opened. Talking about the number of champions that exist alone without context is mathematically fraudulent.
Again we can agree to disagree.

A larger pool of unique champions, rocks, playing cards, or anything makes it harder to obtain all unique items. There is no way around that fact.

If you believe that’s a fact, then sure let’s test that fact. I will hand you a twenty sided dice. I will take a regulation deck of standard playing cards. My deck, minus jokers, has 52 different elements in it. Yours has twenty. So mine should be harder to obtain all of the unique items in it.

I will start flipping over cards, you may start rolling. I win if I get all the unique items in less individual card deals than you take to roll all the unique numbers. It will take me exactly 52 cards to obtain all of the unique cards. No more, no less. How many dice rolls do you think it will take for you to get all the unique numbers on that die, on average?

Hint: its 72.

Yes, these two situations are different. Except you’ve stated context doesn’t matter, by virtue of me saying context matters and you saying you disagree. So you’re saying it is a fact that 52 must be greater than 72. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree there as well.

Maybe that’s too unfair. Let’s try again, this time with *precisely* the same situation that is happening in the game. This time you can have a six sided die. I will take a twenty sided die. We both have to roll our numbers, so we’re both doing exactly the same thing.

However, since I said the number of rolls matters greatly and you said you disagree, I will take ten rolls for every one of yours. It will take me 72 rolls on average, as mentioned above, so you get 7.

It will actually take you on average 15 rolls. So I guess since it is easier for me than you, 6 > 20. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree there as well.

GroundedWisdom

If you're going to bring math and odds into it, no one has a one out of a 200 chance to acquire anything. The odds of acquiring a champ depend on the odds of the champ appearing in the crystals and the number of crystals opened. Talking about the number of champions that exist alone without context is mathematically fraudulent.
Again we can agree to disagree.

A larger pool of unique champions, rocks, playing cards, or anything makes it harder to obtain all unique items. There is no way around that fact.

And it really doesn’t matter because if 7* champions entered the game I will in fact be done. End of story. I know Kabam or anyone else dont care and that’s fine, but I was stating my action if that occurs.

People can keep saying they're going to stop, and it's entirely up to them if they do, but I'm willing to wager a good number saying that will continue playing and chasing the next hurdle like the rest of us.
Even if some quit, that's really not the end of the game. A plethora of people are excited for them to come, a good number are indifferent, and even more aren't happy about it, but they'll play anyway.
Either way the game will continue.

OmegaMan

.
However, since I said the number of rolls matters greatly and you said you disagree, I will take ten rolls for every one of yours. It will take me 72 rolls on average, as mentioned above, so you get 7.

It will actually take you on average 15 rolls. So I guess since it is easier for me than you, 6 > 20. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree there as well.

This argument is laughable. A dice with 6 sides numbers 1-6. Ok easy odds are 1 in 6 that you can roll a number of your choosing.

Add 6 more sides numbers 1-12. Now odds are 1 in 12 that you can roll a number of your choosing.

Add 6 more. Yep now it’s 1 in 18 odds.

Now let’s that that 18 sides dice and make the numbers random from 1 to 100. Now what’s the odds that you roll the number of your choice?

This dice with 18 sides and random numbers is pretty much like opening a crystal in MCOC. The more champions added the higher the random numbers go which make it more difficult to achieve desired result.

I’d would certainly vote for other ways to sustain the game over 7* champions.

GroundedWisdom

Except the whole point of RNG is the opposite of getting a desired result. We can increase our chances by obtaining multiple Crystals, or by obtaining specific ones. The point is to have a random system so that people receive what they roll, not what they want. That's true with 1*s, and it's true with 20*s.

OmegaMan

Except the whole point of RNG is the opposite of getting a desired result. We can increase our chances by obtaining multiple Crystals, or by obtaining specific ones. The point is to have a random system so that people receive what they roll, not what they want. That's true with 1*s, and it's true with 20*s.

Agree with the point of RNG to a point. Still should be a way to collect the champions that you want and need at times for certain content. I still believe this game is not totally RNG. 230+ champions in game and you pull three or four of the same champion back to back to back. Seems not so random.

Shadowstrike

Except the whole point of RNG is the opposite of getting a desired result. We can increase our chances by obtaining multiple Crystals, or by obtaining specific ones. The point is to have a random system so that people receive what they roll, not what they want. That's true with 1*s, and it's true with 20*s.
Agree with the point of RNG to a point. Still should be a way to collect the champions that you want and need at times for certain content. I still believe this game is not totally RNG. 230+ champions in game and you pull three or four of the same champion back to back to back. Seems not so random.

I see where you're coming from but at the same time I'm wondering about how the cost benefit analysis would would be for the Developers. If everybody could just buy the Champions they're missing, then why would you need to buy crystals ever again and if you don't need to spend for units, what happens to the bottom line?

Every decision can create a domino effect throughout the game. People are waiting on specific champions so they can take them up to rank four and clear content but once you have the Champions and once you have the content cleared, what's next?

They already said that back issues were no longer the priority they once were since rank up materials are more readily available in other content and if alliance quest and Alliance War aren't your priority then there's very little incentive to continue playing the game Beyond the occasional brag post.

I know it sounds and seems like I'm painting all the Doom and Gloom and I'm not trying to, I'm just looking at all the angles in this and where it could conceivably go.

OmegaMan

Except the whole point of RNG is the opposite of getting a desired result. We can increase our chances by obtaining multiple Crystals, or by obtaining specific ones. The point is to have a random system so that people receive what they roll, not what they want. That's true with 1*s, and it's true with 20*s.
Agree with the point of RNG to a point. Still should be a way to collect the champions that you want and need at times for certain content. I still believe this game is not totally RNG. 230+ champions in game and you pull three or four of the same champion back to back to back. Seems not so random.
I see where you're coming from but at the same time I'm wondering about how the cost benefit analysis would would be for the Developers. If everybody could just buy the Champions they're missing, then why would you need to buy crystals ever again and if you don't need to spend for units, what happens to the bottom line?

Every decision can create a domino effect throughout the game. People are waiting on specific champions so they can take them up to rank four and clear content but once you have the Champions and once you have the content cleared, what's next?

They already said that back issues were no longer the priority they once were since rank up materials are more readily available in other content and if alliance quest and Alliance War aren't your priority then there's very little incentive to continue playing the game Beyond the occasional brag post.

I know it sounds and seems like I'm painting all the Doom and Gloom and I'm not trying to, I'm just looking at all the angles in this and where it could conceivably go.

Yes I agree it has to be beneficial for the company and the end user (in this case gamers). I just think at some point they have to start dividing up the crystals so you can target what you are looking for.

They do this today with paid crystals often through deals, but this needs to become part of normal game play. Like the 4* split crystals cosmic/tech, science/Mystic, etc.

It narrows the pool down to a more practical size and honestly I believe it would yield more crystal sales. If you wanted a Dr doom and didn’t have one many won’t buy crystals because the chances are too small and it’s a waste of their money. If that crystal had two classes in it they would tend to be more open.

Everything good can’t come as a dollar buy. There has to be a balance and it’s far from balanced today.

unknown

This content has been removed.

GroundedWisdom

It's not alienation, it's the continuation of the game. All of these aspects...newer Rarities, RNG, the next chase, the next hurdle.....are an intrinsic part of the game itself. Which should be obvious after X amount of years playing. Which is why if someone is personally over the chase, then that sounds more like someone is tired of this game than a design flaw. Not that there isn't room for improvement. It's just that those elements ARE the axiom of the game itself. Champions aren't introduced for content. Content is designed for Champions, either narrowly or broadly.

unknown

This content has been removed.

GroundedWisdom

It's not alienation, it's the continuation of the game. All of these aspects...newer Rarities, RNG, the next chase, the next hurdle.....are an intrinsic part of the game itself. Which should be obvious after X amount of years playing. Which is why if someone is personally over the chase, then that sounds more like someone is tired of this game than a design flaw. Not that there isn't room for improvement. It's just that those elements ARE the axiom of the game itself. Champions aren't introduced for content. Content is designed for Champions, either narrowly or broadly.
The 2018 launch of 6*s was rough and players had to get used to it. I'm not sure players can do it a second time, we're approaching 5 years and that's a lot of building and spending.

Whatever they do they need to come up with a full reset that's digestible. How? I don't know. Maybe 7*s are actually better than relics or anything else because the latter aren't tested.

I think they'll rebuild the same way they did with 6*s....and 5*s....etc.
I'm not a huge proponent of considering lower Rarities as useless, but I will say it's just like any other stepping stone. They're useful for where a Player is at, then they become older, and the next new stepping stone comes along. They're still useful, in the interim that someone works on something else, and whatever content-specific need comes up.
The problem with Relics is that spells end-game. It's stopping the process of acquiring, Ranking, and progressing. It's just adding extra boosts to the same Champs. As much as people might believe that's preferable, that becomes old, very fast. It's also limiting.
The game continues because we, and the Devs, have something to grow into. That's an important part of the process.

OmegaMan

The difference in 7* and when five and six stars came about is that the game is so much more monetized than before. Many Free to play players quit and gave it up because they couldn’t keep up with the pace of the game.

I can just imagine the gap and how it’s gets bigger and bigger with the introduction of 7* champions. I believe the game can survive with good content that uses the champions that we have and new ones that come every month. I don’t think 7* champions give the game longevity over quality content.

Stebo_79

I expect we’ll see 7 stars when we get to book 3. There’s a long way to go before we get there.

Shivacrux

What would you do if 7 stars comes to the game? What do you think about the future of MCOC?

I will make a post about it and cry about it
And then will be adjusting to the new meta

GroundedWisdom

The difference in 7* and when five and six stars came about is that the game is so much more monetized than before. Many Free to play players quit and gave it up because they couldn’t keep up with the pace of the game.

I can just imagine the gap and how it’s gets bigger and bigger with the introduction of 7* champions. I believe the game can survive with good content that uses the champions that we have and new ones that come every month. I don’t think 7* champions give the game longevity over quality content.

The game is no more monetized than it's always been, and that gap you're talking about is a distraction. There is no keeping up with people who spend large amounts of money. There's no race or competition between F2P, and P2P. It's not possible. It's also not required to be successful at the game, so it's just an illusory focus.
Content is not enough to give the game longevity. That's just a stalemate. "We'll finish our Rosters and chase after the odd Champ, and you just keep designing content to please us."
That's dangerous for the game, the people growing after you, and believe it or not, you as well. If people want a game where they don't have to work on and improve their Roster, they're playing the wrong game.

OmegaMan

The difference in 7* and when five and six stars came about is that the game is so much more monetized than before. Many Free to play players quit and gave it up because they couldn’t keep up with the pace of the game.

I can just imagine the gap and how it’s gets bigger and bigger with the introduction of 7* champions. I believe the game can survive with good content that uses the champions that we have and new ones that come every month. I don’t think 7* champions give the game longevity over quality content.
The game is no more monetized than it's always been, and that gap you're talking about is a distraction. There is no keeping up with people who spend large amounts of money. There's no race or competition between F2P, and P2P. It's not possible. It's also not required to be successful at the game, so it's just an illusory focus.
Content is not enough to give the game longevity. That's just a stalemate. "We'll finish our Rosters and chase after the odd Champ, and you just keep designing content to please us."
That's dangerous for the game, the people growing after you, and believe it or not, you as well. If people want a game where they don't have to work on and improve their Roster, they're playing the wrong game.

I would disagree with this opinion and that’s fine we all have an opinion on it.

GroundedWisdom

Of course.