**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
Second, player feedback by necessity doesn't incorporate the developer imperatives. Developers don't have unlimited latitude to do whatever they want, or whatever the players want. Most players don't know when they give feedback what is actually possible vs impossible, practical vs impractical, doable vs not doable. A lot of players gave the feedback "just remove the gates." Okay. Suppose that option is off the table. What would their second choice be? We'll never know, because they don't know that's off the table. In a controlled focus group, you can communicate those things back and forth. Players can say "I would change this" and the devs can say "we can't do that, but why do you want to change it in that way; is there another way to achieve the same goal?" That kind of back and forth doesn't exist at all now, and there's no way to approximate it by just throwing all the feedback into a pile.
Third, no one knows what the devs are thinking are reasonable alternatives. Even if we all agreed on the problems, which we don't, we certainly don't all agree on which solutions are palatable or unpalatable. So in a focus group the devs can say "okay, we agree this is bad; suppose we did this instead" and the players can say "no, that's worse" or "that's better, but not good enough." If you believe all the problems are obvious and all the solutions are also obvious, then this has no value. In your line of work, even when everyone agrees on what the problem is, does everyone agree on what the right way to resolve it is?
And finally, there's a meta benefit. Players have been asking for players to have "a seat at the table" when content decisions are made. Well, here it is. Forming the focus group and having major contributions in the updated content come directly from them is a long-term win. Even if Kabam could have made a solution all by themselves without player input, if there's two solutions that work, both of which Kabam can live with, and one was invented by them and one was invented by a player, giving the player the win is a way to get players to believe they are part of the process.
As to timelines, I think there's two things at play here. First, timelines are not trivial to make in my experience, because game development tends to happen in expertise silos and in deep pipelines. In other words, there isn't one dedicated team that makes Book 2, different parts of Book 2 are worked on by map designers, reward economy designers, champion designers, etc. Each silo does its thing across a pipeline of content. When the pipeline is running smoothly, a good producer can guestimate how long it will take for something to get done, and try to set deadlines accordingly. But if that pipeline is disrupted, its like a supply chain being purged and restarted, if that analogy works for you. It becomes much more difficult to know when final products will ship. And the new roadmap has disrupted the pipeline, making predictions more difficult. Keep in mind there's four blog posts of roadmap changes that will all be competing for developer attention, not just this one.
On top of that, they seem to have an idea of what they want to do, but they want to leave latitude to change that based on feedback. If the feedback changes things in certain ways it could radically alter the amount of work necessary, or shift the amount of work required from different people If they set a date and have to slip it, that's just as bad if not worse than not giving any dates at all. The people who say an estimate is better than nothing all seem to have the day off when Kabam announces a date change.
Some things could be changed faster than others. But I think when they are tackling something like adjusting Act 6, they don't want to do things piecemeal. They want to make those changes all at once, or in a minimum of steps. Now, some people disagree that's the best way to go, but there's no credible argument that says combining changes is *obviously* wrong. That's a matter of preference and efficiency over expediency.
On the subject of RNG champ acquisition. I've addressed that in a couple places, for example most recently here: https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/203667/taming-rng-in-champion-crystals. But I think we'll have another chance to discuss that when Part 3 of the Roadmap Tetralogy releases and discusses Kabam's future plans for champion crystals and champion acquisition.
I think Kabam will relay on higher rewards in side quests. Thats the direction they're headed.
Also,is there any plan to look into solo and alliance objectives crystals? They are so outdated.
It s only a waste of units and no funny
In 6.2 you cannot have this kind of fight
More difficult than others bosses in 6.4 quest
You always need specific champions for the last 10% so you cannot pass until you have them @Kabam Miike
The "apex" of content is Abyss (before that was LoL). Story content has to be reasonable so everyone can get through. While the attack reductions are surprising, the niche nodes still make it a pain (in a way), which makes it more reasonable. 30% reduction is welcome in my eyes. The current 50-70% makes it a lot more pleasant.
Previously (in before acts), attack values were never as high as the healthpools of your highest ranked characters. That is a real killer right there, that is what destroyed act6.
Attack values weren't THAT far off healthpools in later Act 5 either. 4/40 4*s have what around 11k health? Attack values in a lot of paths were 7-8k.
Like I said, if they want to make story content more accessible that's fine. The question from that point is, why should the newest tier of resources also be gained from it? Would people be so okay with Act content being gutted but having the same happen to the rewards and then adding all the high tier stuff to side events? I don't think they would personally. We'd have the same complaints just about different content. The only difference is this "story content should be easy" trope wouldn't fly.
Really really tough content can form the apex (unit collector). The summer of pain seems like another maze, yes that can be really really tough. Static content that is a pathway to progression? No.
Again, making story content easy is fine. I just see no justification for the newest tier resources being gained through it at that point.
as for you rewards points, that is why the rewards are so pathetic. 1 t5cc random. Abyss is more pleasant and gives three times the rewards.
You just will be getting punished less which means less revives used to finish fights. I think Kabam should move towards end game rewards with similar side quests such as the maze. This is the direction they seem to be headed and I cosign this. I also only did initial clear of the maze because I didn't have a great solution for the Champion boss at that time and I didn't cry about it. I just got better and improved my roster. If side quests being hard is the expectation I think people will complain but it won't be the massive threads that we had with the Champion boss or act 6 gates.
Will there be compensations as well or only for the ones who did it?
I mean it’s possible to spent ten thousands of units there and don’t finish him at all. So as far as I read they will be lost if one doesn’t finish him before the update.
Point being if you really want to clear something and progress, sometimes you have to
vulture for havok
psylocke can possible do punisher (not proficient with her so do not know)