why should when you do a quest affect your ability to complete it and why do players that have already completed it get to have an eaiser time?
Good point. So from now on, champion buffs will no longer affect champions in pre-existing content, but you also will be prevented from using anything that didn't exist when it was released. Fair?
So not only will you no longer be able to use champs that did not exist when the content was released, you will also have all your champs temporarily de-ranked to the highest rank that was achievable when that content was released. It isn't fair that players were limited to 6* rank 2s when 6.1 came out, and now players can blast through it with rank 4s. No Herc, no 7* champs, no Sigil potions.
Oh wait, on second thought that's a horrible idea.
The champions in Labyrinth and Abyss in general do not change when champions are updated, because those are in fact different champions. That isn't our Red Hulk with buffs, that's a completely different Red Hulk. Buffing Red Hulk doesn't automatically buff Ex Red Hulk any more than it buffs Captain Marvel. But when the player version of the champion is used in content, most of the time that version changes along with the player version, because it *is* the player version. And the idea that buffing those champions somehow disadvantages future players ignores the fact that future players always have *enormous* advantages in running content in general. They always have the benefit of more public knowledge and experience, they have the benefit of having access to champions that did not exist when the content was created and can much more easily counter the content, they have the benefit of having access to higher rarities and ranks that did not exist when the content was originally balanced. We don't consider this unfair in general, this is just how the game evolves over time. Complaining about one tiny ripple upstream against the huge current downstream of player advantages seems to be missing the forest for the trees.
This is very correct however i feel like the fact that the game is based almost entirely on rng negates this argument just because someone can have a champ dosent mean they do, and most guides are released when contents drops so any future changes would go unaccounted for
Easy fix, limiting champions to what was available then means guides don't need updated because they'll never get outdated!
And if the player dosent have a viable option they would end up with 0 champs
Good thing it's easier than ever for players to obtain multiple viable options
No they have more access to crystalsn what you get out of them is completely up to fate
It isn't just the number of crystals that matter. It is the fact we can choose which ones to get. Do you open basic 6* crystals or featured? Which one you choose to open strongly affects the statistical distribution of your champion drops, and ultimately what your roster looks like.
One crystal is random. But across dozens and hundreds of crystals, statistics follows distributions. If you want one specific champ and they are in the featured crystals, you could get any one of the twenty four champs in the crystal when you open one crystal. However, if you open ten the odds of getting the champ you want isn't still one in twenty four, it becomes about one in three. If you open twenty, the odds become more than one in two. And if you open fifty, you now have almost 90% chance to get what you want.
Or you can throw your hands up, say its all RNG so nothing is guaranteed, and open basics. Which many people do. And as a result, nine out of ten of the former group get the champ they want, and three out of ten of the latter group do. Those players were all subject to the same RNG, but their decisions changed the outcome nonetheless.
My crystals are just as random as any other players'. However, my roster is not.
Technically theres no gaurantee the champions in the featured are viable against the buffed champ but thats a reach and a half
why should when you do a quest affect your ability to complete it and why do players that have already completed it get to have an eaiser time?
Good point. So from now on, champion buffs will no longer affect champions in pre-existing content, but you also will be prevented from using anything that didn't exist when it was released. Fair?
So not only will you no longer be able to use champs that did not exist when the content was released, you will also have all your champs temporarily de-ranked to the highest rank that was achievable when that content was released. It isn't fair that players were limited to 6* rank 2s when 6.1 came out, and now players can blast through it with rank 4s. No Herc, no 7* champs, no Sigil potions.
Oh wait, on second thought that's a horrible idea.
The champions in Labyrinth and Abyss in general do not change when champions are updated, because those are in fact different champions. That isn't our Red Hulk with buffs, that's a completely different Red Hulk. Buffing Red Hulk doesn't automatically buff Ex Red Hulk any more than it buffs Captain Marvel. But when the player version of the champion is used in content, most of the time that version changes along with the player version, because it *is* the player version. And the idea that buffing those champions somehow disadvantages future players ignores the fact that future players always have *enormous* advantages in running content in general. They always have the benefit of more public knowledge and experience, they have the benefit of having access to champions that did not exist when the content was created and can much more easily counter the content, they have the benefit of having access to higher rarities and ranks that did not exist when the content was originally balanced. We don't consider this unfair in general, this is just how the game evolves over time. Complaining about one tiny ripple upstream against the huge current downstream of player advantages seems to be missing the forest for the trees.
This is very correct however i feel like the fact that the game is based almost entirely on rng negates this argument just because someone can have a champ dosent mean they do, and most guides are released when contents drops so any future changes would go unaccounted for
What do you mean "negates that argument?" The argument is that when there are more and better options for dealing with content, the content is easier because that's how we typically define difficulty. Individual players may possess more or less of those options, but that's irrelevant. The presumption is that when more and more powerful options exist, players will eventually get them.
I'm sure there are players that felt that Act 7 was easier for them than Act 5, simply because when they tackled Act 7 they had a better roster, relatively speaking, than when they tackled Act 5. For them, Act 7 was easier. But we don't say that well, maybe Act 7 is easier than Act 5. Act 7 is objectively harder regardless of individual anecdotes.
But this is also a self-annihilating argument. If you argue that allowing players to bring stronger champs at stronger ranks doesn't reduce the content difficulty because some players might not have those things, then I can argue that updating the defenders doesn't necessarily make it harder, because you're assuming that the players will have a harder time with the updated defenders. But that depends on their roster. If RNG says the content doesn't get easier, then RNG says the content doesn't get harder either.
@DNA3000 when you have a conversation with someone who does not seem to be getting what you're saying and completely ignoring the points you bring up , do you still engage with elaborate answers so that more than OP , the rest of the people reading it might find it valuable?
Asking because whenever someone bring up the 'RNG Rigged' thread and seem to be completely dense to information, your answers are informative and i learn things even though i might already be on that side
why should when you do a quest affect your ability to complete it and why do players that have already completed it get to have an eaiser time?
Good point. So from now on, champion buffs will no longer affect champions in pre-existing content, but you also will be prevented from using anything that didn't exist when it was released. Fair?
So not only will you no longer be able to use champs that did not exist when the content was released, you will also have all your champs temporarily de-ranked to the highest rank that was achievable when that content was released. It isn't fair that players were limited to 6* rank 2s when 6.1 came out, and now players can blast through it with rank 4s. No Herc, no 7* champs, no Sigil potions.
Oh wait, on second thought that's a horrible idea.
The champions in Labyrinth and Abyss in general do not change when champions are updated, because those are in fact different champions. That isn't our Red Hulk with buffs, that's a completely different Red Hulk. Buffing Red Hulk doesn't automatically buff Ex Red Hulk any more than it buffs Captain Marvel. But when the player version of the champion is used in content, most of the time that version changes along with the player version, because it *is* the player version. And the idea that buffing those champions somehow disadvantages future players ignores the fact that future players always have *enormous* advantages in running content in general. They always have the benefit of more public knowledge and experience, they have the benefit of having access to champions that did not exist when the content was created and can much more easily counter the content, they have the benefit of having access to higher rarities and ranks that did not exist when the content was originally balanced. We don't consider this unfair in general, this is just how the game evolves over time. Complaining about one tiny ripple upstream against the huge current downstream of player advantages seems to be missing the forest for the trees.
This is very correct however i feel like the fact that the game is based almost entirely on rng negates this argument just because someone can have a champ dosent mean they do, and most guides are released when contents drops so any future changes would go unaccounted for
What do you mean "negates that argument?" The argument is that when there are more and better options for dealing with content, the content is easier because that's how we typically define difficulty. Individual players may possess more or less of those options, but that's irrelevant. The presumption is that when more and more powerful options exist, players will eventually get them.
I'm sure there are players that felt that Act 7 was easier for them than Act 5, simply because when they tackled Act 7 they had a better roster, relatively speaking, than when they tackled Act 5. For them, Act 7 was easier. But we don't say that well, maybe Act 7 is easier than Act 5. Act 7 is objectively harder regardless of individual anecdotes.
But this is also a self-annihilating argument. If you argue that allowing players to bring stronger champs at stronger ranks doesn't reduce the content difficulty because some players might not have those things, then I can argue that updating the defenders doesn't necessarily make it harder, because you're assuming that the players will have a harder time with the updated defenders. But that depends on their roster. If RNG says the content doesn't get easier, then RNG says the content doesn't get harder either.
@DNA3000 when you have a conversation with someone who does not seem to be getting what you're saying and completely ignoring the points you bring up , do you still engage with elaborate answers so that more than OP , the rest of the people reading it might find it valuable?
Asking because whenever someone bring up the 'RNG Rigged' thread and seem to be completely dense to information, your answers are informative and i learn things even though i might already be on that side
So because i made my own points im ignoring theirs? I said multiple times that the points were good, what more do you want? Do you not like what i said or do you just not like me? because if thats the case just dont engage with my posts, its that simple.
why should when you do a quest affect your ability to complete it and why do players that have already completed it get to have an eaiser time?
Good point. So from now on, champion buffs will no longer affect champions in pre-existing content, but you also will be prevented from using anything that didn't exist when it was released. Fair?
So not only will you no longer be able to use champs that did not exist when the content was released, you will also have all your champs temporarily de-ranked to the highest rank that was achievable when that content was released. It isn't fair that players were limited to 6* rank 2s when 6.1 came out, and now players can blast through it with rank 4s. No Herc, no 7* champs, no Sigil potions.
Oh wait, on second thought that's a horrible idea.
The champions in Labyrinth and Abyss in general do not change when champions are updated, because those are in fact different champions. That isn't our Red Hulk with buffs, that's a completely different Red Hulk. Buffing Red Hulk doesn't automatically buff Ex Red Hulk any more than it buffs Captain Marvel. But when the player version of the champion is used in content, most of the time that version changes along with the player version, because it *is* the player version. And the idea that buffing those champions somehow disadvantages future players ignores the fact that future players always have *enormous* advantages in running content in general. They always have the benefit of more public knowledge and experience, they have the benefit of having access to champions that did not exist when the content was created and can much more easily counter the content, they have the benefit of having access to higher rarities and ranks that did not exist when the content was originally balanced. We don't consider this unfair in general, this is just how the game evolves over time. Complaining about one tiny ripple upstream against the huge current downstream of player advantages seems to be missing the forest for the trees.
This is very correct however i feel like the fact that the game is based almost entirely on rng negates this argument just because someone can have a champ dosent mean they do, and most guides are released when contents drops so any future changes would go unaccounted for
What do you mean "negates that argument?" The argument is that when there are more and better options for dealing with content, the content is easier because that's how we typically define difficulty. Individual players may possess more or less of those options, but that's irrelevant. The presumption is that when more and more powerful options exist, players will eventually get them.
I'm sure there are players that felt that Act 7 was easier for them than Act 5, simply because when they tackled Act 7 they had a better roster, relatively speaking, than when they tackled Act 5. For them, Act 7 was easier. But we don't say that well, maybe Act 7 is easier than Act 5. Act 7 is objectively harder regardless of individual anecdotes.
But this is also a self-annihilating argument. If you argue that allowing players to bring stronger champs at stronger ranks doesn't reduce the content difficulty because some players might not have those things, then I can argue that updating the defenders doesn't necessarily make it harder, because you're assuming that the players will have a harder time with the updated defenders. But that depends on their roster. If RNG says the content doesn't get easier, then RNG says the content doesn't get harder either.
Allowing players to bring in stronger champs at stronger ranks reduces the difficulty of the content for that player, but a defender getting buffed still can make the content harder no matter what magneto for example is a harder defender than he was pre buff and no matter what your account looks like its still harder for some it may be 0.1% harder for others 100%
That's like saying reducing the requirements for Paragon from three R4s to two R4s only makes it easier for players with two. For players with one, its just as out of reach.
Part of the process of doing content is getting the champions to do the content. If the options allowed are better, the process of getting the champions to do the content is both easier, and more beneficial. The fact that players don't have them at this precise moment is basically missing the entire point of the game itself.
The current design meta of the game explicitly follows this philosophy. If the devs make content that requires RPG counters you don't have, that isn't seen as unfair. It is seen as giving you something to do - grow your roster until you get them. If the devs make content that gives advantages to certain roster options this is also not seen as unfair, it is seen as giving players a choice: seek out those options, or try to do the content without them. Having those options not only makes the content easier for the players who have them, it also provides an additional option for players who need or want a lower difficulty curve. They can go get them.
If you think RNG means the devs can't add difficulty features that depend on your roster, well, they can, they do, and they will. You either believe roster growth is a legitimate part of player progress that the player can actually work towards, or you probably need to reconsider if this is the right game for you. RNG is not going away, roster requirements aren't going away, and if anything they will probably get increasingly diverse over time.
You cant say "here this champ can beat this content" then have the odds of getting that champ be 0.40% whats the plan there? The player is just indefintely stuck until they pull a viable option? they dont have the option to get that champ, they have a chance to, they have a option to purchase crystals, what they get from them isnt up to them
You're describing the situation as if it was hypothetical, when this is the reality of the game.
We say this all the time. This champ can cheese the content. These champs are decent counters for the content. And these champs will work, but it will be a slog. Which ones your roster has determines how difficult this particular piece of content will ultimately be. Roster strength is rewarded.
My plan is to aim for roster diversity constantly, so I have them when I need them. It is the same plan I have for toilet paper. You know how much time it takes to get toilet paper? I don't live in a Costco. I buy it long before I need it, so that it is always well within reach when I need it.
If the odds of getting what I needed were always 0.4%, I would almost never have what I needed. And yet I almost always have what I need, or have ways to try to get it. Do you think I'm just the most astronomically lucky player possible? You can quote the odds, but I know the odds. And I play the odds. And that's why the odds of me having the right counters is not 0.4%. It is typically 95%. Because I'm not trying to pull a counter two minutes before entering a map, any more than I am searching my house for toilet paper two minutes before going to the bathroom.
Also, almost no piece of content has only one workable counter. They often have a cheese option, but a number of other very strong options, as well as a bunch of suboptimal but workable options. The odds of someone missing all of them tends to be low. However, how the player chooses to develop their roster can change those odds from being low to astronomically low.
why should when you do a quest affect your ability to complete it and why do players that have already completed it get to have an eaiser time?
Good point. So from now on, champion buffs will no longer affect champions in pre-existing content, but you also will be prevented from using anything that didn't exist when it was released. Fair?
So not only will you no longer be able to use champs that did not exist when the content was released, you will also have all your champs temporarily de-ranked to the highest rank that was achievable when that content was released. It isn't fair that players were limited to 6* rank 2s when 6.1 came out, and now players can blast through it with rank 4s. No Herc, no 7* champs, no Sigil potions.
Oh wait, on second thought that's a horrible idea.
The champions in Labyrinth and Abyss in general do not change when champions are updated, because those are in fact different champions. That isn't our Red Hulk with buffs, that's a completely different Red Hulk. Buffing Red Hulk doesn't automatically buff Ex Red Hulk any more than it buffs Captain Marvel. But when the player version of the champion is used in content, most of the time that version changes along with the player version, because it *is* the player version. And the idea that buffing those champions somehow disadvantages future players ignores the fact that future players always have *enormous* advantages in running content in general. They always have the benefit of more public knowledge and experience, they have the benefit of having access to champions that did not exist when the content was created and can much more easily counter the content, they have the benefit of having access to higher rarities and ranks that did not exist when the content was originally balanced. We don't consider this unfair in general, this is just how the game evolves over time. Complaining about one tiny ripple upstream against the huge current downstream of player advantages seems to be missing the forest for the trees.
This is very correct however i feel like the fact that the game is based almost entirely on rng negates this argument just because someone can have a champ dosent mean they do, and most guides are released when contents drops so any future changes would go unaccounted for
What do you mean "negates that argument?" The argument is that when there are more and better options for dealing with content, the content is easier because that's how we typically define difficulty. Individual players may possess more or less of those options, but that's irrelevant. The presumption is that when more and more powerful options exist, players will eventually get them.
I'm sure there are players that felt that Act 7 was easier for them than Act 5, simply because when they tackled Act 7 they had a better roster, relatively speaking, than when they tackled Act 5. For them, Act 7 was easier. But we don't say that well, maybe Act 7 is easier than Act 5. Act 7 is objectively harder regardless of individual anecdotes.
But this is also a self-annihilating argument. If you argue that allowing players to bring stronger champs at stronger ranks doesn't reduce the content difficulty because some players might not have those things, then I can argue that updating the defenders doesn't necessarily make it harder, because you're assuming that the players will have a harder time with the updated defenders. But that depends on their roster. If RNG says the content doesn't get easier, then RNG says the content doesn't get harder either.
@DNA3000 when you have a conversation with someone who does not seem to be getting what you're saying and completely ignoring the points you bring up , do you still engage with elaborate answers so that more than OP , the rest of the people reading it might find it valuable?
Asking because whenever someone bring up the 'RNG Rigged' thread and seem to be completely dense to information, your answers are informative and i learn things even though i might already be on that side
I do it for three reasons. One: I hope the OP might still be convinced, or at least will absorb enough through osmosis that it might spark thoughts down the road after they have disengaged. Two: there might be other people on the sidelines following along, and they might find the discussion useful if informative.
And three: I often do this for myself. I'm of the opinion that you don't know a thing unless you can explain it, and it never hurts to explain things in different ways, because it is often very self-educational. It is easy to just say someone is wrong. But the hard work of walking through it step by step and figuring out why they are wrong, or at least why you disagree with them, that can be useful. There have been times I've seen a post that seemed obviously bonkers to me, but while composing a rebuttal I find that while yes, its still bonkers, there's this interesting idea nonetheless lurking out there in dark territory that I never bothered to look around, because it is in the middle of bonkers territory.
It was doing this during Act 7.1 beta during the difficulty discussions, where I was arguing that the difficulty of 7.1 was not out of the ordinary if you simply looked at Act 6 difficulty and projected it forward, that I realized it did not occur to me to consider carefully if the premise that Act 6 difficulty was actually appropriate itself was accurate. And that eventually led to my analysis of Act 6 difficulty, and tackling the premise that Act content could be simultaneously used for progressional content and end game content.
Which, to bring this full circle, was my little contribution to promoting the kind of content we have now, where instead of throwing big numbers at players, we throw roster checks at them. And we reward players who can see past the RNG crystals and grow their rosters strategically with the agency tools available to them
Comments
Asking because whenever someone bring up the 'RNG Rigged' thread and seem to be completely dense to information, your answers are informative and i learn things even though i might already be on that side
Part of the process of doing content is getting the champions to do the content. If the options allowed are better, the process of getting the champions to do the content is both easier, and more beneficial. The fact that players don't have them at this precise moment is basically missing the entire point of the game itself.
The current design meta of the game explicitly follows this philosophy. If the devs make content that requires RPG counters you don't have, that isn't seen as unfair. It is seen as giving you something to do - grow your roster until you get them. If the devs make content that gives advantages to certain roster options this is also not seen as unfair, it is seen as giving players a choice: seek out those options, or try to do the content without them. Having those options not only makes the content easier for the players who have them, it also provides an additional option for players who need or want a lower difficulty curve. They can go get them.
If you think RNG means the devs can't add difficulty features that depend on your roster, well, they can, they do, and they will. You either believe roster growth is a legitimate part of player progress that the player can actually work towards, or you probably need to reconsider if this is the right game for you. RNG is not going away, roster requirements aren't going away, and if anything they will probably get increasingly diverse over time.
We say this all the time. This champ can cheese the content. These champs are decent counters for the content. And these champs will work, but it will be a slog. Which ones your roster has determines how difficult this particular piece of content will ultimately be. Roster strength is rewarded.
My plan is to aim for roster diversity constantly, so I have them when I need them. It is the same plan I have for toilet paper. You know how much time it takes to get toilet paper? I don't live in a Costco. I buy it long before I need it, so that it is always well within reach when I need it.
If the odds of getting what I needed were always 0.4%, I would almost never have what I needed. And yet I almost always have what I need, or have ways to try to get it. Do you think I'm just the most astronomically lucky player possible? You can quote the odds, but I know the odds. And I play the odds. And that's why the odds of me having the right counters is not 0.4%. It is typically 95%. Because I'm not trying to pull a counter two minutes before entering a map, any more than I am searching my house for toilet paper two minutes before going to the bathroom.
Also, almost no piece of content has only one workable counter. They often have a cheese option, but a number of other very strong options, as well as a bunch of suboptimal but workable options. The odds of someone missing all of them tends to be low. However, how the player chooses to develop their roster can change those odds from being low to astronomically low.
And three: I often do this for myself. I'm of the opinion that you don't know a thing unless you can explain it, and it never hurts to explain things in different ways, because it is often very self-educational. It is easy to just say someone is wrong. But the hard work of walking through it step by step and figuring out why they are wrong, or at least why you disagree with them, that can be useful. There have been times I've seen a post that seemed obviously bonkers to me, but while composing a rebuttal I find that while yes, its still bonkers, there's this interesting idea nonetheless lurking out there in dark territory that I never bothered to look around, because it is in the middle of bonkers territory.
It was doing this during Act 7.1 beta during the difficulty discussions, where I was arguing that the difficulty of 7.1 was not out of the ordinary if you simply looked at Act 6 difficulty and projected it forward, that I realized it did not occur to me to consider carefully if the premise that Act 6 difficulty was actually appropriate itself was accurate. And that eventually led to my analysis of Act 6 difficulty, and tackling the premise that Act content could be simultaneously used for progressional content and end game content.
Which, to bring this full circle, was my little contribution to promoting the kind of content we have now, where instead of throwing big numbers at players, we throw roster checks at them. And we reward players who can see past the RNG crystals and grow their rosters strategically with the agency tools available to them