Just the fact that this is a conversation now implies that this stance has changed, without any notice to effect.
The conversation of when an advantage for having something becomes a disadvantage for not having that something is a conversation that was started back in 2015. The conversation of how hard the top EQ difficulty is supposed to be is one that started when Uncollected tier was released, and those complaints keep coming back with every change to the top tier EQ maps.
This has nothing to do with the difficulty of the fight. The nodes in the EQ are just opposite to the official position on relics..
They are only opposite the official position on relics if you buy the position that relics are necessary. However, they are not necessary. They are only necessary if you believe that the advantage they provide in the content is necessary. Which is a discussion that's been going on since forever. The content can be done without relics, so they are by definition not necessary. They are not a gate to the content. However, if you want to take the position that they are essentially necessary because the advantage they provide is something you deserve to have because otherwise the content is just too hard then by all means, feel free to attempt to make that case.
History suggests that before you convince any significant number of people, the next difficulty tier will materialize. That line of thought was unconvincing pretty much every time its been attempted. But maybe you'll be the one to break that cycle.
The content has moved from relics being beneficial to not using relics being punitive. Directionally, it is a step closer towards becoming necessary and probably a gating factor. I don't wish to convince anyone, just think that it would be better for the team to make an official announcement on the shift in design.
Well, you might not wish to convince anyone, but you will need to at least convince the devs that they made such a shift in design intent before you can move on to convincing them to announce that they did, as that would seem to be a prerequisite.
Let’s try this with a foundational question, is a node that effectively turns off the ability to use specials/gain power unless a relic is available a beneficial or punitive node?
Because while it is possible to play the node, it is more difficult without a relic not because of the benefit of the relic itself but because a core game mechanic was tied to it. To me that sounds clearly punitive.
A different question is then, is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, as that opens up new types of design. But to date the community has been told that not using relics would not have a negative cost, which in this case it does, because it’s tied to a core mechanic. It’s not unfair for the community to ask for communications about changes in direction like this, heck I thought that was one of the purposes of the monthly patch notes… so why wasn’t this more obviously in there?
No different than a Node that inhibits the use of Parry, or Dex, or inhibits all Damage except Specials. Which we've seen many times without the use of Relics. Those by that definition have been punitive. The fact that Relics are given an advantage is the issue, and quite frankly, they're an aspect of the game. They said that people wouldn't HAVE to use them. They never said they wouldn't offer an advantage to doing so.
I'm just waiting for the time when I'm doing a quest, look at the nodes, look at the defenders then go to the relics screen and do a bunch of unbinding and binding. Next path do the same thing. Going to be so much fun.
None of these paths in this months MEQ that have the relic node require the use of the relic to complete the path. All that node does is help you further on top of the already beneficial node on the path. Just play the path as you would the others and you'll be fine. Everyone was complaining about the 90% in power gain path in the Skill chapter- https://youtu.be/st1uhsvM9tc
Get over it. You don't need to use the relics.
This video shows 2 things.
1: Never use medium ending combos... 2 : Lose 60% of hp per match
this is where all the people who said they wouldnt grind for relics show up. it was clear this was going to be done by kabam eventually and they gave amble time to do so. I have just about every 3* relic there is by simply playing the game (not going out of my way to farm for them) same thing happened with 1* champs and people selling champs, they are simply there to be there and if they are eventually needed to be used you have em available...
Difference here is that 1* champ nodes aren’t placed into monthly content, they are sitting in a variant you can do at anytime if you choose to. If you wanna do your monthly content then you shouldn’t be forced to equip a relic to get benefits. While this node here may not be a big deal, it is setting up something we will see more of
None of these paths in this months MEQ that have the relic node require the use of the relic to complete the path. All that node does is help you further on top of the already beneficial node on the path. Just play the path as you would the others and you'll be fine. Everyone was complaining about the 90% in power gain path in the Skill chapter- https://youtu.be/st1uhsvM9tc
Get over it. You don't need to use the relics.
This video shows 2 things.
1: Never use medium ending combos... 2 : Lose 60% of hp per match
It wasn't an instructional video on Black Panther. It wasn't a skills showcase. Just showing that you don't need a relic to have the same result.
Just the fact that this is a conversation now implies that this stance has changed, without any notice to effect.
The conversation of when an advantage for having something becomes a disadvantage for not having that something is a conversation that was started back in 2015. The conversation of how hard the top EQ difficulty is supposed to be is one that started when Uncollected tier was released, and those complaints keep coming back with every change to the top tier EQ maps.
This has nothing to do with the difficulty of the fight. The nodes in the EQ are just opposite to the official position on relics..
They are only opposite the official position on relics if you buy the position that relics are necessary. However, they are not necessary. They are only necessary if you believe that the advantage they provide in the content is necessary. Which is a discussion that's been going on since forever. The content can be done without relics, so they are by definition not necessary. They are not a gate to the content. However, if you want to take the position that they are essentially necessary because the advantage they provide is something you deserve to have because otherwise the content is just too hard then by all means, feel free to attempt to make that case.
History suggests that before you convince any significant number of people, the next difficulty tier will materialize. That line of thought was unconvincing pretty much every time its been attempted. But maybe you'll be the one to break that cycle.
The content has moved from relics being beneficial to not using relics being punitive. Directionally, it is a step closer towards becoming necessary and probably a gating factor. I don't wish to convince anyone, just think that it would be better for the team to make an official announcement on the shift in design.
Well, you might not wish to convince anyone, but you will need to at least convince the devs that they made such a shift in design intent before you can move on to convincing them to announce that they did, as that would seem to be a prerequisite.
Let’s try this with a foundational question, is a node that effectively turns off the ability to use specials/gain power unless a relic is available a beneficial or punitive node?
Because while it is possible to play the node, it is more difficult without a relic not because of the benefit of the relic itself but because a core game mechanic was tied to it. To me that sounds clearly punitive.
A different question is then, is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, as that opens up new types of design. But to date the community has been told that not using relics would not have a negative cost, which in this case it does, because it’s tied to a core mechanic. It’s not unfair for the community to ask for communications about changes in direction like this, heck I thought that was one of the purposes of the monthly patch notes… so why wasn’t this more obviously in there?
No different than a Node that inhibits the use of Parry, or Dex, or inhibits all Damage except Specials. Which we've seen many times without the use of Relics. Those by that definition have been punitive. The fact that Relics are given an advantage is the issue, and quite frankly, they're an aspect of the game. They said that people wouldn't HAVE to use them. They never said they wouldn't offer an advantage to doing so.
Thanks for restating my point for me, but reframing it in a way that completely missed the point.
I'm just waiting for the time when I'm doing a quest, look at the nodes, look at the defenders then go to the relics screen and do a bunch of unbinding and binding. Next path do the same thing. Going to be so much fun.
This right here… it’s such a negative QoL change with all this shuffling… plus let’s not assume binding/unbinding will remain free. This feels like a street level marketing push.
1.) Get us used to/addicted to changing relics for free 2.) Design content where it slowly becomes more required 3.) Reintegrate charging for binding/unbinding
That’s the day I’m dreading. Really want to be wrong about this.
Just the fact that this is a conversation now implies that this stance has changed, without any notice to effect.
The conversation of when an advantage for having something becomes a disadvantage for not having that something is a conversation that was started back in 2015. The conversation of how hard the top EQ difficulty is supposed to be is one that started when Uncollected tier was released, and those complaints keep coming back with every change to the top tier EQ maps.
This has nothing to do with the difficulty of the fight. The nodes in the EQ are just opposite to the official position on relics..
They are only opposite the official position on relics if you buy the position that relics are necessary. However, they are not necessary. They are only necessary if you believe that the advantage they provide in the content is necessary. Which is a discussion that's been going on since forever. The content can be done without relics, so they are by definition not necessary. They are not a gate to the content. However, if you want to take the position that they are essentially necessary because the advantage they provide is something you deserve to have because otherwise the content is just too hard then by all means, feel free to attempt to make that case.
History suggests that before you convince any significant number of people, the next difficulty tier will materialize. That line of thought was unconvincing pretty much every time its been attempted. But maybe you'll be the one to break that cycle.
The content has moved from relics being beneficial to not using relics being punitive. Directionally, it is a step closer towards becoming necessary and probably a gating factor. I don't wish to convince anyone, just think that it would be better for the team to make an official announcement on the shift in design.
Well, you might not wish to convince anyone, but you will need to at least convince the devs that they made such a shift in design intent before you can move on to convincing them to announce that they did, as that would seem to be a prerequisite.
Let’s try this with a foundational question, is a node that effectively turns off the ability to use specials/gain power unless a relic is available a beneficial or punitive node?
Because while it is possible to play the node, it is more difficult without a relic not because of the benefit of the relic itself but because a core game mechanic was tied to it. To me that sounds clearly punitive.
A different question is then, is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, as that opens up new types of design. But to date the community has been told that not using relics would not have a negative cost, which in this case it does, because it’s tied to a core mechanic. It’s not unfair for the community to ask for communications about changes in direction like this, heck I thought that was one of the purposes of the monthly patch notes… so why wasn’t this more obviously in there?
No different than a Node that inhibits the use of Parry, or Dex, or inhibits all Damage except Specials. Which we've seen many times without the use of Relics. Those by that definition have been punitive. The fact that Relics are given an advantage is the issue, and quite frankly, they're an aspect of the game. They said that people wouldn't HAVE to use them. They never said they wouldn't offer an advantage to doing so.
Thanks for restating my point for me, but reframing it in a way that completely missed the point.
That's not what I did at all. I pointed out that restrictive Nodes which "punish" normal game mechanics are not exclusive to Relics. It's impossible to include them in content in a way that can't be interpreted as punishment for those who don't use them because they add a benefit people don't get without them. Sooner or later, people will have to face the fact that they're a part of the game now.
Just the fact that this is a conversation now implies that this stance has changed, without any notice to effect.
The conversation of when an advantage for having something becomes a disadvantage for not having that something is a conversation that was started back in 2015. The conversation of how hard the top EQ difficulty is supposed to be is one that started when Uncollected tier was released, and those complaints keep coming back with every change to the top tier EQ maps.
This has nothing to do with the difficulty of the fight. The nodes in the EQ are just opposite to the official position on relics..
They are only opposite the official position on relics if you buy the position that relics are necessary. However, they are not necessary. They are only necessary if you believe that the advantage they provide in the content is necessary. Which is a discussion that's been going on since forever. The content can be done without relics, so they are by definition not necessary. They are not a gate to the content. However, if you want to take the position that they are essentially necessary because the advantage they provide is something you deserve to have because otherwise the content is just too hard then by all means, feel free to attempt to make that case.
History suggests that before you convince any significant number of people, the next difficulty tier will materialize. That line of thought was unconvincing pretty much every time its been attempted. But maybe you'll be the one to break that cycle.
The content has moved from relics being beneficial to not using relics being punitive. Directionally, it is a step closer towards becoming necessary and probably a gating factor. I don't wish to convince anyone, just think that it would be better for the team to make an official announcement on the shift in design.
Well, you might not wish to convince anyone, but you will need to at least convince the devs that they made such a shift in design intent before you can move on to convincing them to announce that they did, as that would seem to be a prerequisite.
Let’s try this with a foundational question, is a node that effectively turns off the ability to use specials/gain power unless a relic is available a beneficial or punitive node?
Because while it is possible to play the node, it is more difficult without a relic not because of the benefit of the relic itself but because a core game mechanic was tied to it. To me that sounds clearly punitive.
A different question is then, is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, as that opens up new types of design. But to date the community has been told that not using relics would not have a negative cost, which in this case it does, because it’s tied to a core mechanic. It’s not unfair for the community to ask for communications about changes in direction like this, heck I thought that was one of the purposes of the monthly patch notes… so why wasn’t this more obviously in there?
No different than a Node that inhibits the use of Parry, or Dex, or inhibits all Damage except Specials. Which we've seen many times without the use of Relics. Those by that definition have been punitive. The fact that Relics are given an advantage is the issue, and quite frankly, they're an aspect of the game. They said that people wouldn't HAVE to use them. They never said they wouldn't offer an advantage to doing so.
Thanks for restating my point for me, but reframing it in a way that completely missed the point.
That's not what I did at all. I pointed out that restrictive Nodes which "punish" normal game mechanics are not exclusive to Relics. It's impossible to include them in content in a way that can't be interpreted as punishment for those who don't use them because they add a benefit people don't get without them. Sooner or later, people will have to face the fact that they're a part of the game now.
I’d encourage you to go back and read what I wrote. Because that’s 0 for 2
The thing is, Kabam stated that relics are optional, and that you wouldn’t have to use it. Players are not to be punished for not using it.
Unfortunately, the nodes Kabam introduced this month is far from ‘not punished’. Relic being beneficial is one thing, being punished for not using it is something completely different.
Players who complain about these relic nodes are feeling deceived, being lied to. Because while relics does give benefits to those who use it, but at the same time it punishes players if they don’t use it.
So let’s say kabam decides to make new nodes, where if you don’t use relics, damage you deal to opponent is reduced by 90%. Now all of a sudden, using relic is not beneficial, it’s mandatory. Not using relics on the other hand, is being punished for it. It’s no longer optional.
-90% power rate is on the same line, just the difficulty of it was negligible. But neglecting an issue doesn’t mean the issue is solved, nor does it disappear. It’s there.
…Perhaps we players misinterpreted what Kabam meant to say when they said ‘optional’. Maybe the nodes are tuned to proper difficulty, so you don’t have to use relics. After all, the nodes were negligible if you have the play-skills.
Just the fact that this is a conversation now implies that this stance has changed, without any notice to effect.
The conversation of when an advantage for having something becomes a disadvantage for not having that something is a conversation that was started back in 2015. The conversation of how hard the top EQ difficulty is supposed to be is one that started when Uncollected tier was released, and those complaints keep coming back with every change to the top tier EQ maps.
This has nothing to do with the difficulty of the fight. The nodes in the EQ are just opposite to the official position on relics..
They are only opposite the official position on relics if you buy the position that relics are necessary. However, they are not necessary. They are only necessary if you believe that the advantage they provide in the content is necessary. Which is a discussion that's been going on since forever. The content can be done without relics, so they are by definition not necessary. They are not a gate to the content. However, if you want to take the position that they are essentially necessary because the advantage they provide is something you deserve to have because otherwise the content is just too hard then by all means, feel free to attempt to make that case.
History suggests that before you convince any significant number of people, the next difficulty tier will materialize. That line of thought was unconvincing pretty much every time its been attempted. But maybe you'll be the one to break that cycle.
The content has moved from relics being beneficial to not using relics being punitive. Directionally, it is a step closer towards becoming necessary and probably a gating factor. I don't wish to convince anyone, just think that it would be better for the team to make an official announcement on the shift in design.
Well, you might not wish to convince anyone, but you will need to at least convince the devs that they made such a shift in design intent before you can move on to convincing them to announce that they did, as that would seem to be a prerequisite.
Let’s try this with a foundational question, is a node that effectively turns off the ability to use specials/gain power unless a relic is available a beneficial or punitive node?
Because while it is possible to play the node, it is more difficult without a relic not because of the benefit of the relic itself but because a core game mechanic was tied to it. To me that sounds clearly punitive.
A different question is then, is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, as that opens up new types of design. But to date the community has been told that not using relics would not have a negative cost, which in this case it does, because it’s tied to a core mechanic. It’s not unfair for the community to ask for communications about changes in direction like this, heck I thought that was one of the purposes of the monthly patch notes… so why wasn’t this more obviously in there?
No different than a Node that inhibits the use of Parry, or Dex, or inhibits all Damage except Specials. Which we've seen many times without the use of Relics. Those by that definition have been punitive. The fact that Relics are given an advantage is the issue, and quite frankly, they're an aspect of the game. They said that people wouldn't HAVE to use them. They never said they wouldn't offer an advantage to doing so.
Thanks for restating my point for me, but reframing it in a way that completely missed the point.
That's not what I did at all. I pointed out that restrictive Nodes which "punish" normal game mechanics are not exclusive to Relics. It's impossible to include them in content in a way that can't be interpreted as punishment for those who don't use them because they add a benefit people don't get without them. Sooner or later, people will have to face the fact that they're a part of the game now.
I’d encourage you to go back and read what I wrote. Because that’s 0 for 2
I read what you wrote. You're asking if it's a bad thing that the Nodes are inhibiting basic mechanics unless you use a Relic. I responded to your comment. I don't agree with that assessment. As for the question, no. It's not a bad thing.
I read what you wrote. You're asking if it's a bad thing that the Nodes are inhibiting basic mechanics unless you use a Relic. I responded to your comment. I don't agree with that assessment. As for the question, no. It's not a bad thing.
Negation of a node by using a relic is not a benefit. It is node design which can only be countered by relics. That isn't the same as saying relics are optional and provide additional benefits. It's the difference between a Bleed Vulnerability node and a Do you bleed? node. You don't claim champions who can inflict bleed are optional in a fight with Do you bleed node.
I read what you wrote. You're asking if it's a bad thing that the Nodes are inhibiting basic mechanics unless you use a Relic. I responded to your comment. I don't agree with that assessment. As for the question, no. It's not a bad thing.
Negation of a node by using a relic is not a benefit. It is node design which can only be countered by relics. That isn't the same as saying relics are optional and provide additional benefits. It's the difference between a Bleed Vulnerability node and a Do you bleed? node. You don't claim champions who can inflict bleed are optional in a fight with Do you bleed node.
Literally optional and provide additional benefits. There are many hills to die on. This isn't one I would.
Just the fact that this is a conversation now implies that this stance has changed, without any notice to effect.
The conversation of when an advantage for having something becomes a disadvantage for not having that something is a conversation that was started back in 2015. The conversation of how hard the top EQ difficulty is supposed to be is one that started when Uncollected tier was released, and those complaints keep coming back with every change to the top tier EQ maps.
This has nothing to do with the difficulty of the fight. The nodes in the EQ are just opposite to the official position on relics..
They are only opposite the official position on relics if you buy the position that relics are necessary. However, they are not necessary. They are only necessary if you believe that the advantage they provide in the content is necessary. Which is a discussion that's been going on since forever. The content can be done without relics, so they are by definition not necessary. They are not a gate to the content. However, if you want to take the position that they are essentially necessary because the advantage they provide is something you deserve to have because otherwise the content is just too hard then by all means, feel free to attempt to make that case.
History suggests that before you convince any significant number of people, the next difficulty tier will materialize. That line of thought was unconvincing pretty much every time its been attempted. But maybe you'll be the one to break that cycle.
The content has moved from relics being beneficial to not using relics being punitive. Directionally, it is a step closer towards becoming necessary and probably a gating factor. I don't wish to convince anyone, just think that it would be better for the team to make an official announcement on the shift in design.
Well, you might not wish to convince anyone, but you will need to at least convince the devs that they made such a shift in design intent before you can move on to convincing them to announce that they did, as that would seem to be a prerequisite.
Let’s try this with a foundational question, is a node that effectively turns off the ability to use specials/gain power unless a relic is available a beneficial or punitive node?
Because while it is possible to play the node, it is more difficult without a relic not because of the benefit of the relic itself but because a core game mechanic was tied to it. To me that sounds clearly punitive.
A different question is then, is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, as that opens up new types of design. But to date the community has been told that not using relics would not have a negative cost, which in this case it does, because it’s tied to a core mechanic. It’s not unfair for the community to ask for communications about changes in direction like this, heck I thought that was one of the purposes of the monthly patch notes… so why wasn’t this more obviously in there?
No different than a Node that inhibits the use of Parry, or Dex, or inhibits all Damage except Specials. Which we've seen many times without the use of Relics. Those by that definition have been punitive. The fact that Relics are given an advantage is the issue, and quite frankly, they're an aspect of the game. They said that people wouldn't HAVE to use them. They never said they wouldn't offer an advantage to doing so.
Thanks for restating my point for me, but reframing it in a way that completely missed the point.
That's not what I did at all. I pointed out that restrictive Nodes which "punish" normal game mechanics are not exclusive to Relics. It's impossible to include them in content in a way that can't be interpreted as punishment for those who don't use them because they add a benefit people don't get without them. Sooner or later, people will have to face the fact that they're a part of the game now.
I’d encourage you to go back and read what I wrote. Because that’s 0 for 2
I read what you wrote. You're asking if it's a bad thing that the Nodes are inhibiting basic mechanics unless you use a Relic. I responded to your comment. I don't agree with that assessment. As for the question, no. It's not a bad thing.
0-3. 3 pitch strike out, maybe next time.
I didn’t state it was a bad thing, I said it is a punitive node that goes against what we’ve been told to date. I then posed the question on if this was bad to which in the same post I said not necessarily as it opens up design ideas that could be fun. I lamented that it was done with 0 announcement about this design change as there are platforms where it could have been.
In unrelated post I do raise concerns about QoL and unbind/bind costs being a future concern but you didn’t quote that.
The only person that’s called it “bad” was you when you strawmanned all this
Just the fact that this is a conversation now implies that this stance has changed, without any notice to effect.
The conversation of when an advantage for having something becomes a disadvantage for not having that something is a conversation that was started back in 2015. The conversation of how hard the top EQ difficulty is supposed to be is one that started when Uncollected tier was released, and those complaints keep coming back with every change to the top tier EQ maps.
This has nothing to do with the difficulty of the fight. The nodes in the EQ are just opposite to the official position on relics..
They are only opposite the official position on relics if you buy the position that relics are necessary. However, they are not necessary. They are only necessary if you believe that the advantage they provide in the content is necessary. Which is a discussion that's been going on since forever. The content can be done without relics, so they are by definition not necessary. They are not a gate to the content. However, if you want to take the position that they are essentially necessary because the advantage they provide is something you deserve to have because otherwise the content is just too hard then by all means, feel free to attempt to make that case.
History suggests that before you convince any significant number of people, the next difficulty tier will materialize. That line of thought was unconvincing pretty much every time its been attempted. But maybe you'll be the one to break that cycle.
The content has moved from relics being beneficial to not using relics being punitive. Directionally, it is a step closer towards becoming necessary and probably a gating factor. I don't wish to convince anyone, just think that it would be better for the team to make an official announcement on the shift in design.
Well, you might not wish to convince anyone, but you will need to at least convince the devs that they made such a shift in design intent before you can move on to convincing them to announce that they did, as that would seem to be a prerequisite.
They stated a position - their actions are not in line with that position to most observers.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
I'm just waiting for the time when I'm doing a quest, look at the nodes, look at the defenders then go to the relics screen and do a bunch of unbinding and binding. Next path do the same thing. Going to be so much fun.
This right here… it’s such a negative QoL change with all this shuffling… plus let’s not assume binding/unbinding will remain free. This feels like a street level marketing push.
1.) Get us used to/addicted to changing relics for free 2.) Design content where it slowly becomes more required 3.) Reintegrate charging for binding/unbinding
That’s the day I’m dreading. Really want to be wrong about this.
Nail on the head - we can revisit this thread in 6 months and see.
I read what you wrote. You're asking if it's a bad thing that the Nodes are inhibiting basic mechanics unless you use a Relic. I responded to your comment. I don't agree with that assessment. As for the question, no. It's not a bad thing.
Negation of a node by using a relic is not a benefit. It is node design which can only be countered by relics. That isn't the same as saying relics are optional and provide additional benefits. It's the difference between a Bleed Vulnerability node and a Do you bleed? node. You don't claim champions who can inflict bleed are optional in a fight with Do you bleed node.
Literally optional and provide additional benefits. There are many hills to die on. This isn't one I would.
Champions who inflict bleed are optional for a Do you bleed? node?
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
This is an idiom expressing a logical fallacy that a large number of people believe but which encourages superficial thinking that leads to ludicrous narratives and dangerous conspiracy theories.
To support OP's point, not every relic node gives the summoner an advantage. This one specifically reduces your power rate by 90% and gives you a burst of power for using your striker. You can ignore the nodes if you have skill champs like Nick Fury or BWDO but if you have a Kingpin, you aren't getting that SP1 off for the DOT debuff for a 100 hits without a relic equipped. So you are essentially at a big disadvantage.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
This is an idiom expressing a logical fallacy that a large number of people believe but which encourages superficial thinking that leads to ludicrous narratives and dangerous conspiracy theories.
Hence the word probably….. ducky conspiracy theories beware.
I'm just waiting for the time when I'm doing a quest, look at the nodes, look at the defenders then go to the relics screen and do a bunch of unbinding and binding. Next path do the same thing. Going to be so much fun.
This right here… it’s such a negative QoL change with all this shuffling… plus let’s not assume binding/unbinding will remain free. This feels like a street level marketing push.
1.) Get us used to/addicted to changing relics for free 2.) Design content where it slowly becomes more required 3.) Reintegrate charging for binding/unbinding
That’s the day I’m dreading. Really want to be wrong about this.
How often are you shuffling relics and why? Chapter 1 and 2 100% right now and haven't swapped a single relic. Just in this weeks objectives there are at least 4, 2 3* and 2 4*, relic crystals you can open. I don't understand why you'd be swapping them around so much.
Let’s try this with a foundational question, is a node that effectively turns off the ability to use specials/gain power unless a relic is available a beneficial or punitive node?
Because while it is possible to play the node, it is more difficult without a relic not because of the benefit of the relic itself but because a core game mechanic was tied to it. To me that sounds clearly punitive.
That's an interesting question. Let's say we assume that such a node would reasonably be described as punishing players who do not have a relic. Now let's consider a modified version of this: suppose we have a map with the same node, but without the relic exception. You just can't gain power at all, with or without relics. If a node that shuts off power gain unless you have a relic is punitive unless you have a relic, then logically this other hypothetical node should be described as simply punitive. Such content, if it were ever created, should fairly be seen as simply punishing players for no reason. Does that seem like a reasonable conclusion?
There are a lot of things we might describe as "core game mechanics" that certain content maps take away. For example, blocking is considered a core game mechanic by most players. However, we've had many instances where fights or sometimes even paths have been mostly or completely unblockable. I still have Unblockable Guillotine flashbacks from the first or second Uncollected EQ map. I would argue that reverse controls is a far more colloquially punishing effect than unblockable or hypothetically removing specials. Is Knull a "punitive defender" without a reverse controls counter?
More to the point: does the introduction of unblockable defenders, reverse controls, or combat power gain removal signal a sudden change in game design? Should the developers be compelled to state that they are changing the way they are managing the game whenever such things are introduced? Are they, in fact, fundamental changes to the game at all?
The question of whether the relic node "changes" how the game is being designed comes down to the question of whether a) the difficulty of the map if you don't have a relic is fundamentally outside the margins for what is fair in TB (and Cav) difficulty, and b) whether the method of delivering that difficulty is inherently unfair.
We've seen maps with inordinate amounts of power gain in the past, and while I find them annoying, I'm not sure I would say that they are unfair. But if it is unfair here, it ought to be unfair everywhere. That leaves the question of whether the difficulty of 3.1 without a relic is outside the fair bounds of EQ in general. Is it?
Let’s try this with a foundational question, is a node that effectively turns off the ability to use specials/gain power unless a relic is available a beneficial or punitive node?
Because while it is possible to play the node, it is more difficult without a relic not because of the benefit of the relic itself but because a core game mechanic was tied to it. To me that sounds clearly punitive.
That's an interesting question. Let's say we assume that such a node would reasonably be described as punishing players who do not have a relic. Now let's consider a modified version of this: suppose we have a map with the same node, but without the relic exception. You just can't gain power at all, with or without relics. If a node that shuts off power gain unless you have a relic is punitive unless you have a relic, then logically this other hypothetical node should be described as simply punitive. Such content, if it were ever created, should fairly be seen as simply punishing players for no reason. Does that seem like a reasonable conclusion?
There are a lot of things we might describe as "core game mechanics" that certain content maps take away. For example, blocking is considered a core game mechanic by most players. However, we've had many instances where fights or sometimes even paths have been mostly or completely unblockable. I still have Unblockable Guillotine flashbacks from the first or second Uncollected EQ map. I would argue that reverse controls is a far more colloquially punishing effect than unblockable or hypothetically removing specials. Is Knull a "punitive defender" without a reverse controls counter?
More to the point: does the introduction of unblockable defenders, reverse controls, or combat power gain removal signal a sudden change in game design? Should the developers be compelled to state that they are changing the way they are managing the game whenever such things are introduced? Are they, in fact, fundamental changes to the game at all?
The question of whether the relic node "changes" how the game is being designed comes down to the question of whether a) the difficulty of the map if you don't have a relic is fundamentally outside the margins for what is fair in TB (and Cav) difficulty, and b) whether the method of delivering that difficulty is inherently unfair.
We've seen maps with inordinate amounts of power gain in the past, and while I find them annoying, I'm not sure I would say that they are unfair. But if it is unfair here, it ought to be unfair everywhere. That leaves the question of whether the difficulty of 3.1 without a relic is outside the fair bounds of EQ in general. Is it?
All that text just to cherry pick…
I didn’t say it was fair or unfair nor did I offer an opinion of the node itself. Already went through this straw man shuffle once. I’ll refer you to the part of the post conveniently left out.
I'm just waiting for the time when I'm doing a quest, look at the nodes, look at the defenders then go to the relics screen and do a bunch of unbinding and binding. Next path do the same thing. Going to be so much fun.
This right here… it’s such a negative QoL change with all this shuffling… plus let’s not assume binding/unbinding will remain free. This feels like a street level marketing push.
1.) Get us used to/addicted to changing relics for free 2.) Design content where it slowly becomes more required 3.) Reintegrate charging for binding/unbinding
That’s the day I’m dreading. Really want to be wrong about this.
How often are you shuffling relics and why? Chapter 1 and 2 100% right now and haven't swapped a single relic. Just in this weeks objectives there are at least 4, 2 3* and 2 4*, relic crystals you can open. I don't understand why you'd be swapping them around so much.
0 for 1, although in fairness I’ll refer you to the comment I was replying to. It gives the context you are asking for.
None of these paths in this months MEQ that have the relic node require the use of the relic to complete the path. All that node does is help you further on top of the already beneficial node on the path. Just play the path as you would the others and you'll be fine. Everyone was complaining about the 90% in power gain path in the Skill chapter- https://youtu.be/st1uhsvM9tc
Get over it. You don't need to use the relics.
This video shows 2 things.
1: Never use medium ending combos... 2 : Lose 60% of hp per match
It wasn't an instructional video on Black Panther. It wasn't a skills showcase. Just showing that you don't need a relic to have the same result.
None of these paths in this months MEQ that have the relic node require the use of the relic to complete the path. All that node does is help you further on top of the already beneficial node on the path. Just play the path as you would the others and you'll be fine. Everyone was complaining about the 90% in power gain path in the Skill chapter- https://youtu.be/st1uhsvM9tc
Get over it. You don't need to use the relics.
This video shows 2 things.
1: Never use medium ending combos... 2 : Lose 60% of hp per match
It wasn't an instructional video on Black Panther. It wasn't a skills showcase. Just showing that you don't need a relic to have the same result.
Definitely wasn’t a skills showcase. Lol
Yes. That's why I said that. Just a fight where I barely tried.
I'm just waiting for the time when I'm doing a quest, look at the nodes, look at the defenders then go to the relics screen and do a bunch of unbinding and binding. Next path do the same thing. Going to be so much fun.
This right here… it’s such a negative QoL change with all this shuffling… plus let’s not assume binding/unbinding will remain free. This feels like a street level marketing push.
1.) Get us used to/addicted to changing relics for free 2.) Design content where it slowly becomes more required 3.) Reintegrate charging for binding/unbinding
That’s the day I’m dreading. Really want to be wrong about this.
How often are you shuffling relics and why? Chapter 1 and 2 100% right now and haven't swapped a single relic. Just in this weeks objectives there are at least 4, 2 3* and 2 4*, relic crystals you can open. I don't understand why you'd be swapping them around so much.
0 for 1, although in fairness I’ll refer you to the comment I was replying to. It gives the context you are asking for.
You're literally just arguing that people aren't responding to your actual comment, but a number of us have responded. If you're going to pick a goal post, defend it.
I'm just waiting for the time when I'm doing a quest, look at the nodes, look at the defenders then go to the relics screen and do a bunch of unbinding and binding. Next path do the same thing. Going to be so much fun.
This right here… it’s such a negative QoL change with all this shuffling… plus let’s not assume binding/unbinding will remain free. This feels like a street level marketing push.
1.) Get us used to/addicted to changing relics for free 2.) Design content where it slowly becomes more required 3.) Reintegrate charging for binding/unbinding
That’s the day I’m dreading. Really want to be wrong about this.
How often are you shuffling relics and why? Chapter 1 and 2 100% right now and haven't swapped a single relic. Just in this weeks objectives there are at least 4, 2 3* and 2 4*, relic crystals you can open. I don't understand why you'd be swapping them around so much.
0 for 1, although in fairness I’ll refer you to the comment I was replying to. It gives the context you are asking for.
0-1 for you as well. Just because you using this like you think you're doing something.
Relics only benefit a few champs per. A 5* skill relic won't benefit the entire skill class. The likelihood that you'll be binding and unbinding is about the same as you being correct about swapping out every path.
For reference, in your first sentence of the comment I quoted you said "This right here… it’s such a negative QoL change with all this shuffling". No one is shuffling relics around.
I'm just waiting for the time when I'm doing a quest, look at the nodes, look at the defenders then go to the relics screen and do a bunch of unbinding and binding. Next path do the same thing. Going to be so much fun.
This right here… it’s such a negative QoL change with all this shuffling… plus let’s not assume binding/unbinding will remain free. This feels like a street level marketing push.
1.) Get us used to/addicted to changing relics for free 2.) Design content where it slowly becomes more required 3.) Reintegrate charging for binding/unbinding
That’s the day I’m dreading. Really want to be wrong about this.
How often are you shuffling relics and why? Chapter 1 and 2 100% right now and haven't swapped a single relic. Just in this weeks objectives there are at least 4, 2 3* and 2 4*, relic crystals you can open. I don't understand why you'd be swapping them around so much.
0 for 1, although in fairness I’ll refer you to the comment I was replying to. It gives the context you are asking for.
0-1 for you as well. Just because you using this like you think you're doing something.
Relics only benefit a few champs per. A 5* skill relic won't benefit the entire skill class. The likelihood that you'll be binding and unbinding is about the same as you being correct about swapping out every path.
For reference, in your first sentence of the comment I quoted you said "This right here… it’s such a negative QoL change with all this shuffling". No one is shuffling relics around.
I did. I pretty much moved them as a "just in case," but they were shuffled.
Comments
Next path do the same thing. Going to be so much fun.
1: Never use medium ending combos...
2 : Lose 60% of hp per match
1.) Get us used to/addicted to changing relics for free
2.) Design content where it slowly becomes more required
3.) Reintegrate charging for binding/unbinding
That’s the day I’m dreading. Really want to be wrong about this.
Sooner or later, people will have to face the fact that they're a part of the game now.
Unfortunately, the nodes Kabam introduced this month is far from ‘not punished’. Relic being beneficial is one thing, being punished for not using it is something completely different.
Players who complain about these relic nodes are feeling deceived, being lied to. Because while relics does give benefits to those who use it, but at the same time it punishes players if they don’t use it.
So let’s say kabam decides to make new nodes, where if you don’t use relics, damage you deal to opponent is reduced by 90%.
Now all of a sudden, using relic is not beneficial, it’s mandatory. Not using relics on the other hand, is being punished for it.
It’s no longer optional.
-90% power rate is on the same line, just the difficulty of it was negligible. But neglecting an issue doesn’t mean the issue is solved, nor does it disappear. It’s there.
…Perhaps we players misinterpreted what Kabam meant to say when they said ‘optional’.
Maybe the nodes are tuned to proper difficulty, so you don’t have to use relics. After all, the nodes were negligible if you have the play-skills.
As for the question, no. It's not a bad thing.
Just played normally and it was done 🤷🏽♂️
I didn’t state it was a bad thing, I said it is a punitive node that goes against what we’ve been told to date. I then posed the question on if this was bad to which in the same post I said not necessarily as it opens up design ideas that could be fun. I lamented that it was done with 0 announcement about this design change as there are platforms where it could have been.
In unrelated post I do raise concerns about QoL and unbind/bind costs being a future concern but you didn’t quote that.
The only person that’s called it “bad” was you when you strawmanned all this
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
To support OP's point, not every relic node gives the summoner an advantage. This one specifically reduces your power rate by 90% and gives you a burst of power for using your striker. You can ignore the nodes if you have skill champs like Nick Fury or BWDO but if you have a Kingpin, you aren't getting that SP1 off for the DOT debuff for a 100 hits without a relic equipped. So you are essentially at a big disadvantage.
There are a lot of things we might describe as "core game mechanics" that certain content maps take away. For example, blocking is considered a core game mechanic by most players. However, we've had many instances where fights or sometimes even paths have been mostly or completely unblockable. I still have Unblockable Guillotine flashbacks from the first or second Uncollected EQ map. I would argue that reverse controls is a far more colloquially punishing effect than unblockable or hypothetically removing specials. Is Knull a "punitive defender" without a reverse controls counter?
More to the point: does the introduction of unblockable defenders, reverse controls, or combat power gain removal signal a sudden change in game design? Should the developers be compelled to state that they are changing the way they are managing the game whenever such things are introduced? Are they, in fact, fundamental changes to the game at all?
The question of whether the relic node "changes" how the game is being designed comes down to the question of whether a) the difficulty of the map if you don't have a relic is fundamentally outside the margins for what is fair in TB (and Cav) difficulty, and b) whether the method of delivering that difficulty is inherently unfair.
We've seen maps with inordinate amounts of power gain in the past, and while I find them annoying, I'm not sure I would say that they are unfair. But if it is unfair here, it ought to be unfair everywhere. That leaves the question of whether the difficulty of 3.1 without a relic is outside the fair bounds of EQ in general. Is it?
I didn’t say it was fair or unfair nor did I offer an opinion of the node itself. Already went through this straw man shuffle once. I’ll refer you to the part of the post conveniently left out.
Relics only benefit a few champs per. A 5* skill relic won't benefit the entire skill class. The likelihood that you'll be binding and unbinding is about the same as you being correct about swapping out every path.
For reference, in your first sentence of the comment I quoted you said "This right here… it’s such a negative QoL change with all this shuffling". No one is shuffling relics around.