**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.

General Game Feedback [Merged Threads]

1…104105107109110…118

Comments

  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,242 ★★★★★
    Pulyaman said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    gohard123 said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    gohard123 said:

    Ya

    DNA3000 said:

    MagicBenton said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DrZola said:

    DNA3000 said:

    gohard123 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    Air98 said:

    StevieManWonder said:

    Notsavage19 said:

    G0311 said:

    We need more choice instead of chance. I know everybody's always worried about "well you can't let everybody have a corvus glaive" well guess what, all the top players and end players already do. Stop dangling the carrot Kabam.

    So you want to let people choose which characters they get? I'm all for limiting the champ pool, but not for directly choosing a champion.
    Agreed. The smallest pool a crystal should be is ten champs, like incursion crystals. RNG is a pain, but it is necessary for the game I think.
    The pool doesn't matter, just increase the odds to target a certain champion. The featured 5* crystal that has the 20% drop rate for a champion should return. They started tailoring content around certain champions and then removed our ability to target champions. We need that crystal now more than ever.
    20% is far too high with as readily available 5* shards are now. That's the whole reason it got scrapped. 10% with a 10 champ pool is a bit more tolerable. It's still fairly high odds and more than double the featured 5* odds but leaving it at 20% basically guarantees anyone can get any champ at this point. That's just not healthy for the game and would basically make basic crystals pointless unless the new crystal was exorbitantly expensive
    20% is definitely not too high and why does everyone parrot the whole targeting isnt "healthy" for the game. We had 20% crystals before and arguably that was the peak of the game in terms of it being enjoyable.
    Being able to targeting *specific* champs is plenty bad for the game. That's why we don't have that crystal anymore. You had two, and only two choices. You could keep that crystal and keep 5* shards permanently scarce. Or you could make 5* shards more accessible and lose that crystal. And the moment kabam decided to make 5* shards more accessible, your choices went from two to one.

    This isn't some arbitrary decision by Kabam either. A large part of the game, including a big chunk of what funds the game's existence, is chasing champions. If you can easily target one specific champion, that chase is over, and the game is also over. There's also the psychological laddering issue. If we're allowed to collect champions in the order we want, it is inevitable that every champion we target will be less valuable than the previous one, because we're always going to target champions in the order we think they are valuable. Even accounting for new champs being added to the game, that's a strong negative pressure. Games that involve collection pursuit all face similar constraints.

    The reason why 20% was too high is also not arbitrary. When players could only buy one or two of those crystals per cycle, then that number represented the chance a player might get that champion. But when it became possible to buy literally *dozens* of those crystals per cycle, it was no longer a question of if, but just a question of how much shards it would take to all but guarantee getting the champ.

    The problem isn't that there's a low chance to get the specific champ you want. You're not going to be able to do that regardless. The only problem that is solvable, and would improve RNG crystal acquisition, is reducing the downside. The floor of how useful the champions are can be raised, without explicitly allowing players to bypass random chance and just get the champ they want with high chance of success.
    While the precise % may be too high at something like 20%, I’m curious who actually gets harmed by a structure similar to the old crystal. That’s an honest question—not trying to be combative.

    It’s easy to find endgame accounts that nab the newest champ and immediately elevate them to R5 and high/max sig. Many of those accounts are playing with a full deck of R2/3 6* awakened and L100+, so I don’t see how even the current system does much to “slow” the rapid accumulation of a new champ for them.

    Lower tier players have traditionally been able to buy new champ crystals, but I suspect a more targeted featured crystal wouldn’t significantly accelerate the influx of new champs for them either—and many are restricted from getting anything beyond 4*/5* based on their Summoner level. If they did land a great new champ, that also might be the event that fully engages them in the game, something I’ve seen happen many times among ally mates and friends. Getting lucky on one Blade featured long ago probably kept me playing in 2018.

    For the upper tier but non-endgame player (where I would place myself), the 5* crystal is nigh irrelevant. I’m sitting on 130-ish 5*’s and, excluding the purchasable champs and special champs, I’m lacking 20-ish 5*’s. Of those, I may realistically want 2 or 3 and maybe 1/4 champ pulls are what I would consider “additive.” The thrill of the 5* champ chase is for all intents and purposes non-existent; 5* shards are just a proxy for sig stones for me.

    I don’t include 6*’s at all, because I think they stand apart and have their own problems. But I’m curious to know how being able to more specifically target what a player wants and needs (especially as it relates to being able to target specific content they’d like to tackle) is a bad thing. The analogy I’d use is the carrot that’s dangled too long—eventually, the poor beast loses interest in carrots altogether and just quits running.

    Again, honest questions. Not an attack.

    Dr. Zola
    Let's unpack this one at a time. First of all, let's look at the players who are whaling out on crystals to nab new champions as fast as possible. Adding a way to get them quickly with some kind of targeted crystal doesn't *slow* them down, it makes them less likely to spend. In other words, a targeted crystal undermines the game's monetization model by taking away the advantage that the whales are spending money to get. And that isn't champions - that's a misunderstanding of the model. Whales don't buy champs, not even the ones that *think* they are buying champs are buying champs. What they are buying is *time*. They get them before we get them. There's no champ the whales spend to get that I won't eventually get for free. The question is when. Any reduction in that time advantage reduces the incentive to spend, so that has to be very carefully considered; you have to balance the speed at which players can acquire specific champs normally with the incentive to bypass that delay by spending.

    This also applies to lower tier spending, but here you also face a different problem. You say that a targeted crystal wouldn't accelerate the influx of those new champs. But that depends on how good the targeted crystal is. If the numbers are low enough that would be true, but then the crystal would also be worthless to such players. It is literally impossible to make a crystal that helps players acquire champions, but doesn't increase the influx of those champions in a noticeable way.

    If you are chasing champs, how quickly you can chase them is relevant and thus the structure of the crystals that create that opportunity is relevant. If you aren't chasing champs, the crystals themselves are irrelevant and any improvement in their structure would be equally irrelevant.

    So to answer the question, being able to specifically target specific champs in a meaningful way can be detrimental because for players that are spending money to get them this would reduce the advantage they are spending money to get, devaluing their spending. For players that are pursuing them more conventionally, either the crystal accelerates that, and above a certain threshold that acceleration is problematic for reasons I mentioned earlier, or it doesn't accelerate them noticeably and the crystal has no perceived benefit. The gap between those two does exist, but it is both narrow and difficult to quantify. And for players not pursuing champs, offering better ways to target champs is harmless, but also meaningless. They don't factor into the discussion at all.
    I think you are missing an easy fix here. Don't release the targeted crystal (20% crystal) until at least 6 months or so has passed since the champ was initially released. The original release of these crystals had issues because they were released twice (once as soon as the new champ was released and then a re-run several months later before being added to the basic). If you build in a 6 month gap between spenders and those acquiring the new champ via the targeted crystal you don't have to worry about the problem you stated above. By the time the champ is available in the targeted crystal the whales/spenders are on to the next bigger/better/higher prestige champ (12+ new champs would have been released by then). It makes everyone else happy in that if they really want a specific champ all they have to do is wait and they will have a very good shot at it.
    Time delays would only address half the problem, or rather half of half the problem. What you're suggesting would automatically build in a time delay between champion introduction and wider availability, but it wouldn't solve the problem of trivializing the chase for champions elsewhere in the game, and in eliminating most of the chase it would create a completely separate problem. Right now spenders spend to get champions now that everyone else has to chase after and get much later. Would they spend money to get champions now that everyone gets almost immediately themselves after the cooldown expires with only minimal chase? That would be a completely separate kind of devaluation.
    Everyone gets almost immediately? Has RNG suddenly disappeared? Using Blade featured crystals as an example. There was a reddit post collating all the blade crystal pulls to determine what the drop rate was (this was before apple forced them to show drop rates) and thousands of people missed. Only 24% got blade so I don’t understand how everyone gets champions almost immediately when RNG is still much a factor
    You're implying that there was some type of deception concerning the Drop Rates prior to Apple "forcing" them (which is untrue, since they complied with the suggestion and were not forced), and we as a collective have been gathering data on pulls for years. Nothing to note actually varied from the findings we had. The Drop Rates were congruent. Further to that, the Blade Crystals were the last set at 20%, so if "only" 24% got Blade, that's above par.
    Jesus is everything a combative stance to you? I wasn’t implying anything. I merely stated it because some people may not know that drop rates were hidden before now and that’s why there was a reddit post trying to figure it out. The point I was making is that not everyone gets the champion because RNG still exists not that Kabam was sneakily hiding anything
    Well, yes. That's exactly the point of RNG. Not everyone gets the Champ. You also felt the need to point out that Apple allegedly forced them to do so, so I presume there was a reason for that.
    There is no allegedly here. Apple did force them to show the drop rates.
    No, they didn't actually.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,242 ★★★★★
    I was here for that arduous conversation. They weren't forced.
  • GamerGamer Posts: 10,168 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    I was here for that arduous conversation. They weren't forced.

    Oh yes ther where fouce one thing like purchasing from cash only thuget
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,242 ★★★★★
    Snizzbar said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    I was here for that arduous conversation. They weren't forced.

    Wow. Try again...

    They complied willingly. They could have just as easily chose not to. There was no forcing involved. For that matter, it was Apple's choice to regulate that. Not by any sort of mandate outside of that.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,242 ★★★★★
    Snizzbar said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Snizzbar said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    I was here for that arduous conversation. They weren't forced.

    Wow. Try again...

    They complied willingly. They could have just as easily chose not to. There was no forcing involved. For that matter, it was Apple's choice to regulate that. Not by any sort of mandate outside of that.
    Exactly which part of the word 'rules' do you not understand?
    Saying they forced them implies that they were refusing to follow guidelines, and that discredits the fact that they have, and continue to, follow all guidelines. There was still a choice in that. They could have refused. They chose to respect the guidelines of their partnership.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,242 ★★★★★
    Pulyaman said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    In any case, I'd rather move on because that's a whole other debate, and Apple is anything but an example of altruism in my opinion.

    No one is saying apple is the saint of companies. This was about why Kabam were forced to reveal drop rates. If I take your stance, If I were apple, I would have made Kabam reveal drop rates of each champ in the 5 star crystal and not say 5 star champ - 100%.
    Now you're just going into conspiracy territory. In the Basic, you get the same chance at any Champ. I know people like to say there are better odds for what you don't want, but that's bologna. The sheer ratio of Champs they call unwanted is almost a guarantee you're going to pull more of those. Mafs and stuffs.
    Forcing them is not what it was. They passed new guidelines, and Kabam complied. Before that, they weren't required to, and had every right to keep it to themselves had they chose to. They could have chosen to after, but that would have strained their relationship with Apple.
    I disagree with the idea that they were forced into it. They weren't required to just because people wanted to know and called them out with every bad pull they got.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,242 ★★★★★
    arsjum said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    Snizzbar said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    I was here for that arduous conversation. They weren't forced.

    Wow. Try again...

    They complied willingly. They could have just as easily chose not to. There was no forcing involved. For that matter, it was Apple's choice to regulate that. Not by any sort of mandate outside of that.
    Anyone from Apple or Kabam would tell you that the bolded part is flat out wrong.
    They very well could have. They're not legally obligated to reveal them. Had they wanted to, they could have chosen not to.
  • PulyamanPulyaman Posts: 2,365 ★★★★★
    GroundedWisdom said:

    Pulyaman said:

    GroundedWisdom said:

    In any case, I'd rather move on because that's a whole other debate, and Apple is anything but an example of altruism in my opinion.

    No one is saying apple is the saint of companies. This was about why Kabam were forced to reveal drop rates. If I take your stance, If I were apple, I would have made Kabam reveal drop rates of each champ in the 5 star crystal and not say 5 star champ - 100%.
    Now you're just going into conspiracy territory. In the Basic, you get the same chance at any Champ. I know people like to say there are better odds for what you don't want, but that's bologna. The sheer ratio of Champs they call unwanted is almost a guarantee you're going to pull more of those. Mafs and stuffs.
    Forcing them is not what it was. They passed new guidelines, and Kabam complied. Before that, they weren't required to, and had every right to keep it to themselves had they chose to. They could have chosen to after, but that would have strained their relationship with Apple.
    I disagree with the idea that they were forced into it. They weren't required to just because people wanted to know and called them out with every bad pull they got.
    I am not saying anything regarding having one champ having more drop rate than another. My point was if you are going to reveal drop rates, might as well reveal the individual things too. But, we can't conclude on that without looking into the code, so I choose to trust Kabam when they say that the rng is not skewed.

    I don't think you understand how app store works. Apple owns the app store. Every update any app makes has to go through Apple's approval process and if they don't approve , the app will not be available in the store. So, when they say, we want you to reveal drop rates and Kabam disagrees, the game will be deleted from app store. There is no negotiation. So, in the end, they were forced into it. It was not just Kabam or mcoc, every game had to reveal the drop rates, so saying people got bad pulls and made apple change the rules is comical
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 36,242 ★★★★★
    In any case, there's no sense in digressing. They're posted. They complied with no argument because they value their relationship with their partners. People see them now. Some don't trust them regardless. I think we can move on in the discussion.
    The point was that 20% is too high for a specific Champ. It undermines the entire system, especially with the amount of Shards available now. Perhaps there could be some kind of a change to the Featured Crystal, but I'm not sure that's going to help much. It just encourages more selectiveness, and it's already past the point of leaving people discontent with everything else. For me, the solution is designing more content for the Champs people keep brushing off.
  • Sensei_MaatSensei_Maat Posts: 396 ★★★
    edited June 2020
    i started saving 4 weeks ago and i have 65k. and i know that i have not been heavy in arenas, and i know people being more crystals would also have many shards obtained from 4* dupes. i see that in 4 weeks if i can obtain 65k then it would be reasonable to assume that others could obtain 75k if they put in the effort.
  • DragonBloodÆDragonBloodÆ Posts: 28 ★
    @DNA3000
    I get your point about targeting champion and how to look at solution 2 from another perspective.
    But my point is if they don't want to enhance the rng to be better for the players then don't design content that requires one or two champs specific to beat it like the 6.2 sinister fight which iam stack at it right now.
    These types of fight makes the game not enjoyably and makes 5 year player like me wanting to quit.
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    DragonBloodÆ said:

    @DNA3000
    I get your point about targeting champion and how to look at solution 2 from another perspective.
    But my point is if they don't want to enhance the rng to be better for the players then don't design content that requires one or two champs specific to beat it like the 6.2 sinister fight which iam stack at it right now.
    These types of fight makes the game not enjoyably and makes 5 year player like me wanting to quit.

    There are a lot more than 2 champs that can do the sinister fight. Granted some are much better than others but quite a lot CAN do it. Champs that can do it alone: Marvel movie, Hype, Medusa, Black Bolt, Marvel classic, Kamala, Ghost, or Ultron (LoL) of the top of my head. With Heimdall or Warlock synergy basically any poison immune champ at all can.

    I m not saying it's not a too restrictive fight, as I've said multiple times I think it is, bc very few of the options especially solo options have any shot at soloing it or even getting it down in 2 or 3 revives, but there are more options than people like to admit
  • DragonBloodÆDragonBloodÆ Posts: 28 ★
    @Worknprogress
    Thats the thing lol I don’t have any 5* or 6* version of the champs you listed and I won’t rank up my 6* undupped kamal khan or my 5 * ultron just for that fight.
    If they were valuable in the champion fight (which is hatder) I would rank them
    And even I got past the sinister boss I don’t have a single counter for the champion other than she hulk which is good assuming i will do completion only because that no retreat node is out of the game.
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    DragonBloodÆ said:

    @Worknprogress
    Thats the thing lol I don’t have any 5* or 6* version of the champs you listed and I won’t rank up my 6* undupped kamal khan or my 5 * ultron just for that fight.
    If they were valuable in the champion fight (which is hatder) I would rank them
    And even I got past the sinister boss I don’t have a single counter for the champion other than she hulk which is good assuming i will do completion only because that no retreat node is out of the game.

    Well that's definitely your choice to wait then. You're less stuck and more just don't want to use available options, which is fine.

    I don't even blame you really but was just making a point that a lot of times when people say they have no options for something it's usually just none they want to use which is quite different.
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    Whathappened said:

    Those alliance tickets are horrible. No matter how I look at the numbers AQ has become more expensive. I know you say it isn't that's why you took the gold away but your math sucks. Another bad move.

    Except that this isn't true at all. It's cheaper for everyone (although minimally for map 6) and you have way more resource flexibility now.
  • WorknprogressWorknprogress Posts: 7,233 ★★★★★
    Mcord11758 said:

    Worknprogress said:

    DragonBloodÆ said:

    @DNA3000
    I get your point about targeting champion and how to look at solution 2 from another perspective.
    But my point is if they don't want to enhance the rng to be better for the players then don't design content that requires one or two champs specific to beat it like the 6.2 sinister fight which iam stack at it right now.
    These types of fight makes the game not enjoyably and makes 5 year player like me wanting to quit.

    There are a lot more than 2 champs that can do the sinister fight. Granted some are much better than others but quite a lot CAN do it. Champs that can do it alone: Marvel movie, Hype, Medusa, Black Bolt, Marvel classic, Kamala, Ghost, or Ultron (LoL) of the top of my head. With Heimdall or Warlock synergy basically any poison immune champ at all can.

    I m not saying it's not a too restrictive fight, as I've said multiple times I think it is, bc very few of the options especially solo options have any shot at soloing it or even getting it down in 2 or 3 revives, but there are more options than people like to admit
    Options yes maybe for a single path to move on but honestly if I used my Medusa to 100% that map it would easily cost me more than an odins worth of units. I have written off 6.2 till the day I pull I heimdal. Then that map will be an item less breeze. Kinda silly that the difference between no items and dozens is one champ that I won’t even use in the fight itself
    Oh for sure. Using someone like that for exploration would be silly costly. The warlock robot synergy is a great substitute for the Heimdall synergy as well though. Still basically just a different version of the same problem if you're missing warlock or vis/Ultron though
Sign In or Register to comment.