**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Comments
I wouldn't be, ironically because that would not be enough to address the issue. To the extent that there is any issue at all, it is with the increased availability of 5* champions increasing the rate at which a player could burn T1A. Anything that increases the availability of T1A by a small amount globally does two bad things in my opinion. It gives more alphas to players who don't need them yet and are already overflowing in them, and it doesn't give significantly more to players that will face increasing demands on them.
No matter how available we make T1A, if 5* champions are going to continue to be more available the T1As will continue to fall behind demand. You would just have to keep cranking them up higher and higher, which makes no sense to me when you could attack the problem directly and once and for all by better balancing the 5* requirements for T1 alpha verses all other rank up resources. I think changing T1A requirements from 5-5-6 to 2-3-4 reduces the costs enough to bring T1A demands back into line with other rank up resources while still being higher than the 4* rank up demands. It also correctly makes it more expensive to rank up to rank 3 than rank 2 (in terms of T1A). And this scales with higher 5* availability.
Putting a little bit of fragments here and there in my opinion makes it look like they are doing something without having to actually do anything. In general, I don't like token efforts. If players don't look at them closely enough they can stop complaints, but I don't think you should manipulate your players' perceptions in that way.
That's certainly a possibility, but the same possibility occurred when they introduced 6* shards to the game. A few players complained that it wasn't fair and they should be retroactively awarded those shards, but they were a tiny minority and ultimately they were ignored. A cost reduction could cause some players to complain, but I would hope the majority would see it as a win for everyone and tell them what to do with their complaints.
There will always be bottleneck resources no matter what level you are at. For newer players it seems to be t3 class catalysts. For mid-level players (advanced tier of AQ) I would say that it is t4 basic catalysts or t4 class catalysts depending on what map you are running. If you are high advanced tier and swapping between advanced and expert brackets then you are most likely running map 5 and going to be getting lots of t4 basic fragments but you will get no t1 alpha catalysts. That is why people who run map 5 complain about never having enough t1 alphas to rank up our 5*s.
On oct 26 there was a live stream of a 5* Blade hunt consisting of 5 crystals. In that opening they obtained a GR,CB and Sparky. In an opening of 1 5* Blade crystal published on oct 28 they obtained a 5* Karnak. Now on dec 2 they published a progression video which showcased their r3 5* GR, Karnak and sparky with a r2 CB.
In the progression video published dec 2 they had 3 alphas in their overflow for a total of 15 t1a on hand after spending 35 t1a to rank the previously mentioned champions. That is enough t1a to rank 10 5* in that month. They also noted they had a t1a alpha shortage, Taking the piss.
They then publish an alpha shortage video today..../facepalm
It is important to recognize this works both ways. There will always be bottlenecks in a progression game like this, so the existence of a bottleneck doesn't prove there is a problem. But by the same token, it is not true that all randomly selected resource limits are equally valid: there is such a thing as a wrongly set resource cost. But if the bottlenecks themselves are not considered direct evidence of a resource costs problem, you must have a different way to assess if there is a problem. Otherwise you have a blind spot in your game design.
So eliminating all player complaints for a moment, if you look at the rank up costs for 4* champions, and you look at the rank up costs for 5* champions, given the current availability of all of those resources, what would you set the T1A rank up costs to be for 5* champions, if you had to set them initially? What should guide that decision, and how would you know if you set them wrong if the existence of a bottleneck was not useful information to make that determination?
I say, we look at the relative proportions between the availability of the different resources as players can earn them in the game, and compare that to the proportionality of the costs of rank up. With some margin for judgment and tweaking, the numbers should be roughly similar in my judgment. They currently are not. Since they are not, what's the justification for making T1A costs three to five times higher for 5* champion rank ups than analogous 4* champion rank ups, when there is no such large cost increase for tier 4 catalysts?
To put it another way, if 6* champions followed the same pattern for T2A that 5* champions did for T1A, then ranking up one 6* champion from rank 1 to rank 2 will cost 13 T2As. That's how unusual the T1A costs are compared to all other rank up costs for all ranks and rarities.
You completely missed my point and have made this a glorified post for you to present your argument for revising rank up requirements for 5*. Great job.
You completely missed my point and have made this post to attempt to appear clever. Ill-advised.
That's not in dispute as far as I'm aware. Is someone taking the other side of this statement?
No attempt at being clever. Just pointing out that you completely missed the point of my post. But thanks, you have now officially given me reason to test the blocking feature in the forums.
How do you get that point from "you will eventually find yourself lacking something that you need. Whether it is t1 alpha, t4 basic, t4 class catalysts, or even gold." It sounds like his point is the same one @IAmNotUrMom was making when he said there will always be a bottleneck, which is that there will always be a bottleneck.
Someone previously (I don't remember who) made the argument that if a bottleneck exists, it should be a "higher" tier resource than T1A. But T2A already is a bottleneck for rank up to rank 4, so the only two other candidates are T4CC and T4B. Except we just had a bunch of adjustments to make them more available so knocking them down seems illogical and raising everything else to match them seems like ratcheting (meaning: the justification for increasing the availability of T4B and T4CC was originally invalid).
From a purely progressional standpoint the logical place to put the bottleneck prior to R4 is T4CC. But that train seems to have left the station for high tier players.
Sorry for the confusion, but I guess I should have been more clear. On my main account (500k rating) I am running low on t1 alpha catalysts and gold. On my alt account (240k rating) I am running low on t4 class catalysts and on t4 basic catalysts. Admittedly I do not do enough arena to keep up on gold, but I am agreeing that t1 alphas are an issue for some players, just as t4 basic or t4 class catalysts are issues for other players.
Flagging is essentially a quick way to PM a moderator and ask them to read a post and review it. Personally, I have no problem with anyone asking the moderators to read my posts. In fact, flagging compels them to read them in their entirety. As long as I'm operating within the rules of the forum, I consider it free advertising.
It is also abuse of the forum if it is done maliciously where no violation exists, so while someone can run around flagging posts for a little while, it seems they eventually get shut down or warned off. So I wouldn't worry about it.
I don't like it being t1 alphas. I would prefer it be something like t4 class catalysts and t2 alphas since you cannot sell those. But then that begs the argument that we need increased item capacities and we all know kabam wins that one too.
I easily use 10-15 a month and have maintained my excess and I have yet to purchase one with glory.
I am more patient with my upgrades, though. I am sitting on a lot of t4cc waiting for decent 5*s to use them on. Maybe I would be singing a different tune if I was less particular with my upgrades.
It is pretty obviously an issue for players. I don't think anyone can reasonably dispute that. The question is to what degree is it the fault of the players, and to what degree is it the fault of the game itself and the way it makes resources available. It appears to be some of column A and some of column B.
There's also a side issue of what is reasonable when we talk about availability. For example, if it was possible to dramatically increase your T1A supply by dropping your entire alliance down to the advanced tier (running Map 3) that would be availability in theory, but I don't think that is reasonable availability in practice. I don't think this actually works either way, but even if it did I don't think the game would be designed reasonably if the players had to do extreme things like that to work around a bad bottleneck.
The question both threads danced around but didn't take on head-on is what is a reasonable rate of upgrade? Just because you're capable of earning 5 5* champions a day, does that mean the game must offer you a way to upgrade them all? Probably not. But certainly there should be some target the game is aiming for or should aim for.
Whatever it is, the game itself is likely to pass that target for uncollected players in 2018, so its an interesting question to consider. I wish the devs would address it, but I'm skeptical they would.
Wrong.
Whereas others don't have an issue with it.
That's true. It's their inherent wrongness that does that lol.
He's actually bang on the money!
How about you chill your bean out expecting to rank up daily