**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.
Comments
You could argue that the specific way this type of content presents difficulty challenges rosters in a very special way, and that therefore the relative value of the rewards to difficulty is lower than for the typical Epic event, but I think that's more a problem with the difficulty than the rewards. People aren't being asked to bring a team that can do the content, they are being asked to bring a team that can do all possible versions of the content. If there was a way for players to narrow the requirements of the team they brought to target what was there rather than what could possibly be there, I think the rewards would be less debatably in line with difficulty.
But honestly, the game in its current form is unable to handle this kind of situation. The problem is champion acquisition is random, and the only mechanism to deal with randomness (outside of the rare Nexus crystal) is to flood the player with them. Kabam doesn't want to eliminate the former, and they can't do the latter, and that puts the rewards in a similar kind of no-man's land.
Addressing this specific problem is the problem that currently occupies the most mind share for me right now. I think 5* resources would be much better appreciated rewards if 5* pulls had a higher probability of targeting what players need to progress, either approaching UC, at UC, or even at Cavalier. I'm Cavalier, and there's still a lot of 5* champs that would help me and I would rank up in a second. It is just that a one in 150 chance of getting a particular one dilutes the value of 5* crystals. In fact, I would say more targeted 5* champs would be significantly more valuable to most players' progress than normal 6* crystals would be. I actually think when Kabam says that 5* champs are appropriate rewards, they are correct. The problem is we don't get 5* champs, we get 5* crystals and shards. And that's a critical distinction.
How to do this in a way that still fits in the way rewards are managed in MCOC is the tricky part. Believe me, I have half a legal pad of scribbles.
The shards you receive upon completing the modok labs are a joke, especially for those who struggle with epic but don't need masters rewards. It feels as if Kabam don't want players to progress. Plus this coin system is ridiculous, only one thing of value and it cost 1000 coins.
When Kabam received some criticism on this a few minutes early, Kabam Porthos took it down, proving Kabam don't acknowledge our feedback.
Fix up the rewards and you'll have everyone's gratitude.
Not Hav the rng with mean Hav I’m done abyss yes 100 procent no Hav 4 part left my goal to do yes when I’m Hav got at 6 stars tech worth rank3 the only half decent I’m hav is
Mysterio Not enjoy him
Kabam, this is really poorly executed, and I just saw rewards and sinister labs in 2019 was better
Now I have to decide if I want to get the generics and loss out on other stuff I intended on getting (e.g., revives, t5b shards).
You said that will be positive changes and the game will follow the right way.
Why you don't want to listen us? The game will become very boring and we will replace it with oder games or activities. This month I don't even want to do the M.O.D.O.K missions for those rewards.
27 x 20 = 540 ( solo objectives)
It doesn’t add up to 3024 coins . Am I missing some quest or something else ????
Someone please explain to me !!!!
1680 + 1008 + 260 = 2948
that leaves with a deficit of 76 coins out of 3024....
the only explanation i can think of is the contracts will have varying amount of coins ... is kabam counting 1 july as well but that again does not add up as adding one more day will add 60 + 36 = 96 ...which is more than the limit of 3024
can someone from kabam explain on this or provide more clarity....
I would like you to keep this feeling in mind the next time you respond about act 6.