This should end

BigBlueOx

Demonzfyre said:

BigBlueOx said:

Demonzfyre said:

BigBlueOx said:

LordSmasher said:

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 don’t know if that first sentence trying to mock my bad joke did anything for you there. Maybe you can say you did it worse? And I guess white knights think alike? Congrats, I guess.

My sentence you reference was in response to this quote from Lord Smasher, “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.”

That point in the future where this may be over done would be frustrating to manage in the current system. That’s all. This wasn’t a reflection of current questing, but again thanks for reading

BigBlueOx

GroundedWisdom said:

BigBlueOx said:

Demonzfyre said:

BigBlueOx said:

LordSmasher said:

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.

But see, if the comments were responding to what I actually said maybe we could do that.

Stature

DNA3000 said:

BigBlueOx said:

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?

The game is largely about finding the right counters for fights. For the most part it isn't impossible to complete the fights without the counters. While they aren't optimal, there are always brute force solutions. With the nodes in this month's EQ, the counters are no longer champs but relics. That's a step away from them being optional. Right now it is any relic, soon it will be specific relics and then specific relics bound to specific champs. That is a fundamental change to how the game works or used to work.

Crusaderjr

GinjabredMonsta said:

Crusaderjr said:

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

only difference is you can still run the quest and still finish paths without even needing to equip a single relic. those with skill and the right champs can get through the content made for them. you DONT need to use relics you simply wont get the benefits, if you cant complete it that way than thats more of a skill issue than a relic issue.

sucks to suck for most. but thats the thing, the harder content isnt for everyone. lvl 50 new accounts shouldnt be able to 100% this content like the rest of us who have the time and rosters for. and those who deliberately avoided collecting or even clearing SQ content for FREE relics dont deserve it even more.

its a hot take i know, but the world isnt sun shine and rainbows, no matter how badly people want it to be.

DNA3000

BigBlueOx said:

DNA3000 said:

BigBlueOx said:

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 guess it was not as interesting as I initially believed it to be. And if you're going to go to strawman, you can have that discussion with someone who wants to play that game.

DNA3000

Stature said:

DNA3000 said:

BigBlueOx said:

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?

The game is largely about finding the right counters for fights. For the most part it isn't impossible to complete the fights without the counters. While they aren't optimal, there are always brute force solutions. With the nodes in this month's EQ, the counters are no longer champs but relics. That's a step away from them being optional. Right now it is any relic, soon it will be specific relics and then specific relics bound to specific champs. That is a fundamental change to how the game works or used to work.

I just did the relic path with an all mutant team with zero relics. Granted, it was a very strong 6* mutant team, but I came away so unscathed I'm pretty sure I could do it with a bit of difficulty with an all 5* team. In fact, the path seems curated specifically for the relic nodes. As I keep saying, the question of whether relics are "necessary" depends on whether the path difficulty without relics is itself exceptionally high. It is not.

First lets consider the defenders on that path: Ronin, Sersi, Nightcrawler, StormX, Toad, and Havok. Only one of them has a particularly dangerous SP2: StormX. It can be tricky to fully dodge and you don't want to be taking too many Storm specials to the face. However, the rest do not have particularly difficult to evade SP2s. You could even argue Havok's SP2 is easier to evade than his SP1. This means energize has only a limited degree of threat provided you end the fight in a reasonable amount of time.

Separately, only two champs require anything remotely like special counters: NC and Havok. Havok *doesn't* require an armor up champ. You just need a champ that doesn't hit him with energy damage and you can kill him without taking too much detonation damage (if any). NC arguably needs an evade counter, but honestly he can still be switched, and he's been around long enough that he can be fought both without an evade counter and without switching him.

I brought AA, Magneto, Kitty, OR, and Apoc into this path. This was massive overkill. I used AA on Ronin for the easy kill. I had Sersi down to half before I made a mistake and ate an SP2. I finished her with Apoc, then Apoc pretty much ran the table on NC, SX, Toad, and Havok. Also, as an aside, if there's a map that's the best place to put a potentially troublesome path, it is 3.1 because Sandman is a complete pushover. I had to try hard to die to him. As I used OR for Sandman, I ended up only using three champs total and only two on this path: an R3 AA and an R4 Apoc.

Now of course, YMMV when it comes to difficulty, but it turns out the only thing I noticed running this path without relics is that it took a little longer. In my judgment, the relic path in 3.1 without relics is substantially easier on average than most chapter 3 TB EQ maps to date. And that means the lack of Relics is not punitive, the presence of them is just a small advantage.

If someone believes Relics are gating them from completing TB 3.1, I would be questioning if they should be doing TB difficulty at all.

Stature

DNA3000 said:

If someone believes Relics are gating them from completing TB 3.1, I would be questioning if they should be doing TB difficulty at all.

You are ignoring the issue and creating a strawman argument no one has made. The fights are not difficult without relics. Nobody has claimed that they are.

But that doesn't change the fact that these are nodes which are directly countered by the use of relics. That they are currently deployed with other nodes which minimize their impact does not change that fact. Once content design incorporates nodes which can only be countered by relics, relics are no longer optional.

If you can have a node with -90% power gain which can only be recouped by the use of a relic, you can also have a node with -90% damage which can only be removed with the use of a relic. Or an indefinite protection node which is only removed by activating a striker. At some point the difficulty without relics will be exceptionally high but the design changes for this to be a reality has already been implemented in this months EQ. From here on it is just a tuning exercise.

FrostGiantLord

This is just getting ridiculous at this point. Kabam, no one gives a damn about your stupid relics, so stop force-feeding it to the players.

DNA3000

Addendum: I decided to attempt the TB3.1 relic path with an all 5* team. Unfortunately, I don't have all my 5* mutants ranked up, and I tried to do it with an identical team to the 6* team I used initially (AA, Mags, Kitty, OR, Apoc). So I ended up taking a 5* rank 3 Apoc and 5* rank 4 Kitty (not the best options, but just to try to not change too many variables). I managed to get to Havok, but I died with him at about 1/3rd health remaining. I am absolutely convinced that a TB using either a full 5* 5/65 team or a mixed 5* 6* team should be able to do this path without relics. If my Apoc was 5/65, no question I get to Sandman, and if you're patient you can kill Sandman with anything.

Lack of relics is not particularly punitive on this specific path. It might be one day, but it isn't yet.

BigBlueOx

DNA3000 said:

BigBlueOx said:

DNA3000 said:

BigBlueOx said:

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 guess it was not as interesting as I initially believed it to be. And if you're going to go to strawman, you can have that discussion with someone who wants to play that game.

But see it’s not a game I’m interested in either, but when you have a couple of scarecrows already doing this, you start to see them in places where there may not be one either. So my apologies if you are indeed attempting to have an honest discussion. My full point was that this change in design cuts against their messaging about relics to date. And I found it curious that with this launch of relics in story/EQ content they didn’t amend this position. Because at the end of the day I agree with most of what you’ve included about the design and interactions in this game. This introduction of relics impact core mechanics could open up the design options we see going forward and can add a level of freshness to the fights as it allows for new interactions that don’t require walls of text and a PhD to understand. Now there are drawbacks to QoL elements of the game and a concern about association of a cost to consider if they over do the need to bind/unbind relics to make paths achievable, but we aren’t there yet and that bit is to raise the flag early before we get there.

At this point in the discussion though, these points have not been included in the conversation and others have also tried to only debate this one part of my comment, because there is a stubbornness to admit that some of the nodes this month are in fact punitive and there is apprehension about calling a spade a spade. This isn’t to say the nodes are unplayable without a relic, because that part of the argument isn’t true either and I’ve been around long enough to have played earlier versions of chapter 6 when we had less suitable champs for some of that content than what exists today. But these nodes are punitive, and this design change could have been included in the relevant patch notes.

Now are nodes that punish the “have nots” fair in a game about collecting that has historically always had this built in as a feature? MCOC History says it’s always been a “core mechanic” as well, so to answer that question it is. But that was also never my point and it’s not a part of the conversation I find terribly interesting either.

Demonzfyre

BigBlueOx said:

Demonzfyre said:

BigBlueOx said:

Demonzfyre said:

BigBlueOx said:

LordSmasher said:

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 don’t know if that first sentence trying to mock my bad joke did anything for you there. Maybe you can say you did it worse? And I guess white knights think alike? Congrats, I guess.

My sentence you reference was in response to this quote from Lord Smasher, “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.”

That point in the future where this may be over done would be frustrating to manage in the current system. That’s all. This wasn’t a reflection of current questing, but again thanks for reading

You should probably learn to structure your thoughts better. You worded your sentence in present tense. Since you probably don't understand what that means, you made it sound like you're shuffling your relics constantly.

The only time moving s relic would be necessary would be if you only had a few. Most all of TB can be done with a single champ from the benefitting class.

You only get a 5 champion team. Typically I bring 3 path counters, 1 boss counter and usually a slot for synergy champs. Any future content will be the same if it's TB difficulty or Act 8 or 9 content. If you've done all the objectives that have been available for relic shards, none of this shuffling would ever be needed. There's so much available in this week's objectives as is. Shuffling relics won't be a thing. New players who have a handful of relics, won't be doing this content anyways.

But again, you don't even need them to complete this months TB quest.

BigBlueOx

Demonzfyre said:

BigBlueOx said:

Demonzfyre said:

BigBlueOx said:

Demonzfyre said:

BigBlueOx said:

LordSmasher said:

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 don’t know if that first sentence trying to mock my bad joke did anything for you there. Maybe you can say you did it worse? And I guess white knights think alike? Congrats, I guess.

My sentence you reference was in response to this quote from Lord Smasher, “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.”

That point in the future where this may be over done would be frustrating to manage in the current system. That’s all. This wasn’t a reflection of current questing, but again thanks for reading

You should probably learn to structure your thoughts better. You worded your sentence in present tense. Since you probably don't understand what that means, you made it sound like you're shuffling your relics constantly.

The only time moving s relic would be necessary would be if you only had a few. Most all of TB can be done with a single champ from the benefitting class.

You only get a 5 champion team. Typically I bring 3 path counters, 1 boss counter and usually a slot for synergy champs. Any future content will be the same if it's TB difficulty or Act 8 or 9 content. If you've done all the objectives that have been available for relic shards, none of this shuffling would ever be needed. There's so much available in this week's objectives as is. Shuffling relics won't be a thing. New players who have a handful of relics, won't be doing this content anyways.

But again, you don't even need them to complete this months TB quest.

If that’s the case, my apologies, text can be a pretty terrible communication media where a lot of context can be lost. While I don’t need it, I have to commend you for a helpful and thoughtful comment here on how to manage this month’s quest for those who do.

raviXsharma

This month again, there is a path in tech quest EQ 2.2 where you won't get power if you dont have a relic equiped. It doesn't make sense why put players in disadvantage when relics should bring advantage to normal playstyle of the game. Even if you you dont enjoy relics much you still need to equip them or you will face some consequences. This is basically forcing users to use a particular feature. This move us not appreciated at all. Please remove relic forcing kabam.

Magrailothos

It's not a fabulous node if you don't have the right relic.

But compare it to the alternative: instead of a gradual stacking Energise that you can interrupt with relics, it could just have been a +100% Energise node.

I_tell_no_tales_1

Stature said:

Pikolu said:

Stature said:

Pikolu said:

Use bishop and the fight is pretty much over before it even becomes a problem

That's not the point though. Ideally, temporary content should not be designed around requirements which are not easily accessible even to players who are close to end game. That the fight can be done by specific counters ignores the issue that the nodes in this month's EQ are opposite to the official stance on relics which is "using them provides some benefits but there are no penalties for not using them" and is shifting to if you don't use relics you are going to pay for it in some other way. Personal experiences may vary, but these type of nodes don't improve the game for anyone. If you have the relics you the node doesn't affect you, if you don't it just makes the game worse off (need more revives, longer fights etc.).

It's the inverse of the changes to AQ nodes where the class penalties were changed to class benefits on some paths. Relics are not available easily enough even at TB/Paragon levels and I would think lot of players are missing relics for specific classes to be able to adjust to these nodes at present. Given the current challenges with inputs and other parts of the game, it seems too soon to force such nodes without addressing the availability of relics in the game. It's either a clumsy attempt to monetise relics or a poorly thought out content design.

The disadvantage of not having a relic is easily outweighed by the advantage of finishing the fight in 30 seconds.

Also 10% energize every 10 seconds is not hard at all to work around. There are nodes where the enemy has permanent 100% energize which would take you 100 seconds (almost 2 minutes) to even get to. When you use bishop on this map, you're literally finishing the fight within 30ish seconds.

The nodes as of yet aren't monetizing relics at all. A 3* r1 relic has just as much advantage in these nodes as a 6* r2 relic. 3* relics are very easy to obtain if you have been doing the side objectives for SQ often. Also with relic unbind costs removed, it is very easy to take your relic off of 1 champion and put it on another to aid you in the quest.

You can get unlucky with RNG and have no relics of a class. The OP doesn't have any mutant relics, I don't have any cosmic relics. Relic shards are not available in quantities to ensure even TB+ (only people who have access to TB EQ) players have at least one relic of all classes at the lowest rarity. That's how early we are in terms of relics availability.

Again, the fact that the node can be played around or the fight can be cheesed with the right counter is immaterial to the direction content design, with respect to relics, is taking. The position was unambiguous, that use of relics would be beneficial or additive and non-use of relics will not be penalizing. Just the fact that this is a conversation now implies that this stance has changed, without any notice to effect. I am not bothered by the node specifically, but I am concerned about the change in position around relics.

The content targets TBs and Paragons and at that point you have atleast some counter to such fights

NearJr

Relics came out in November and each month there have been objectives that reward relic shards. Everyone has had quite enough time to get some relics.

If 1, 2 or even 3 paths each month require relics, you have the ability to use them, and even if you don't, they are not difficult paths.

If by this point you still choose not to use them, that is either your prerogative, or people being stubborn in a failed attempt to "stick it to the man".

You're only hurting yourselves if you refuse to equip one silly relic for a couple of paths.

raviXsharma

NearJr said:

Relics came out in November and each month there have been objectives that reward relic shards. Everyone has had quite enough time to get some relics.

If 1, 2 or even 3 paths each month require relics, you have the ability to use them, and even if you don't, they are not difficult paths.

If by this point you still choose not to use them, that is either your prerogative, or people being stubborn in a failed attempt to "stick it to the man".

You're only hurting yourselves if you refuse to equip one silly relic for a couple of paths.

I stopped playing the game around July last year to take a break and focus more on my career and life and I got back in like April. For god's sake believe me people i do not have all the relics man. I cannot gather all of them within 2 months! Everyone here is considering you should have them or this is paragon and thronebreaker targetted so you MUST have them. Guys trust me I do not have every required relic. It does feels like I'm suddenly being forced to use them after coming back cuz there was nothing like this before. I appreciate the ones who were kind enough to believe and went with my words and understood my problem and my view point and replied calmly. Thank you to those.