**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
We have not set an end-date for the new period, but we will update this banner when we have more information.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
We have not set an end-date for the new period, but we will update this banner when we have more information.
Comments
According to General Feedback Threads, players want less repetitive arena, less defensive AI (hold block at corner without any move), reform the old / stale arena milestones, better chance to obtain champs I/O forcing players to grind 24/7 in 3 days, and etc. Dev Diary acknowledged and promised to bring improvements. However,
BRINGING DEATH MATCHES CONSECUTIVELY AFTER 20 STREAKS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS IMPROVEMENT AT ALL.
So, Kabam team, please communicate for your intended change in Arena other than one-off Dev Diary please. If the so-called arena improvement promise simply means death matches and if your team still thinking “ hey guys, it’s more challenging now? Why you guys reject it!?”, then I think you will lose more players.
In the 5 Star Featured/Crystal Trove, you can use a 1/25, with a 2/35, and a 3/45, or a 3/30 with a 4/40, and a 5/50.
You can use double 1/25's if you're using a 4/55
After 13 wins in the 4 Star Featured, run maxed out 4 Stars, or 5 Stars above 3/45
After 13 Wins in the 5 Star Featured, run a 4/55 with 2 3/45 or 5/50, after 17 wins, 3/45 or 5/50 to 20 wins.
Thanks for listening to the community! Eventually this will all get tuned right
This definitely fells worse, this is my third time hitting a so called death match. All at round 19 or 20. Seem to hit all or nothing enemies, I tried to bait this magik for about 2 minutes and she would not throw tell she hit 3.
Again, Thank you very much for handling this the right way!
Loki / Carnage / Electro = Beyond-God Tier confirmed
You guys really love dropping the ball, smh
Thanks a lot.
The Arena has, and continues to be, content that favors specific player groups over others. These changes don't really change that, they only change which groups are favored.
Before this change, it favored players with wider rosters of Champions at medium or higher Rank, at specific Star ratings for each Arena, and who better understood the matchmaking system (and game system on many other levels). Combined with lots of time and/or use of Units and Boosts.
Now with this change, it changes at least the part of the above criteria from "wider rosters of Champions at medium or higher Rank" to "wider rosters of Champions at higher Rank". It gets rid of the practical usefulness of Champions at medium rank. It kills that "Infinite Streak" method.
I don't know if the players who "better the matchmaking system (and game system on many other levels)" will cease to be a factor in improving Arena performance. Often an awareness of stats and system configuration of a game will yield boosted results. And in a game like MCOC that has complicated number and variable interactions, coupled with limited formal disclosure or tools, it seems especially prone to "in the know" players continuing to get (stacked across different parameters) boosted results.
The recent change will hurt some players, and help other players. Just as the previous version hurt some players, and helped other players.
It is unfortunate that this change also punishes players who spent resources to create a roster for Arena's previous format ("Infinite Streak", etc.). That represents a massive investment of resources into a largely now worthless and useless roster configuration. This positions those players at a clear disadvantage for current content. It also reinforces the notion that you can't rely on game devs to keep any mode's format intact (Arena, Dungeons/Incursions, etc.). This "rely on" issue "complicates" longterm planning for roster development, and brand identity and brand image.
It's a game designer conundrum in how to handle older, "bad" content, that materially affects (or would materially affect if changed) players. If designers leave it in the game as is, it remains bad content. But if designers change it, then they are creating instability in their game in something players have long relied on as a standard. Usually, the longer the content has been left unchanged, and the more that content has (or would have if changed) an impact on players, it's better to just leave the content alone and not change it. Better to leave in old bad content, than overhaul it and then get a new game that plays so different that either (1) players get "screwed" by not being configured for the new game, or (2) the new game doesn't feel like the game players know and they no longer desire to play it at the same level.
In finance, they call "style drift" when you change things enough that it's really a new thing. This is something the game dev industry would be wise to keep track of as a concept as well. Know if they're drifting or potentially drifting, weigh the projected costs and benefits of that. One site I referenced sated, "the strongest voice you can give your product is a well-defined and consistently communicated brand identity." I wouldn't go that far, but brand identity can have its role.
I know this is a tough issue for game devs to juggle. Especially when in a game like MCOC, the players have ASKED for "changes" to the game. And then the devs have to wrestle with what the players think they want vs. what the players will freak out at having changed... until the weather changes... and then the players (and devs) react (or think) a different way. (I've been there)
Maybe it's regarded as an improvement simply because it removes a layer of non-intuitive awareness of stats and system configuration. That depends on which players fit into the "new to the Arena" demographic. And how these changes end up affecting players performance and participation over time. Is that just a subset of the players doing "Featured 3-Star", "Summoner Trials", and "Quickmatch"? Is it players that have only been playing the game for a certain duration of time? Or only players that have only played less than a certain number of Arena matches?
Without clarification of what defines this demographic, it just becomes a guessing game for me to figure out what it specifically references. So please excuse me if I address the wrong groups below in my guesses. I am happy to change my analysis to a more accurate demographic with further clarification.
I think the adding of a 3-Star at Tier 10 of the Milestone Rewards for the Featured 3-Star Arena "could" likely improve the game for some players. A player can grind less total points to get it, and there is no fixed limit on what % of players can achieve it. "Milestone Rewards" are not mutually exclusive and are not based on performance relative to others.
But how hard is it for a "new player" to build up points?
Any new player that didn't have the skill or roster to keep a winning streak going at 3+ will likely not see any change in their performance.
Any new player that has the skill or roster to keep a winning streak going at 3+ will likely see an increase or drop in their performance, based on their roster having more high Rank Champions at the maximum Star level for that Arena. So, new players with the high skill or high spend to get "more high Rank Champions at the maximum Star level for that Arena" will increase performance. New players with the non-high skill or non-high spend to get "more high Rank Champions at the maximum Star level for that Arena" will decrease performance (if they can no longer brute force through a handful of hard matches, to get to matches they can use weaker Champions effectively on).
In the area of "Rank Rewards", these rewards are mutually exclusive and are based on performance relative to others.
It's worth noting that longtime players will have (or can much more easily get) "more high Rank Champions at the maximum Star level" for the lower Star Arenas. So longtime players will be able to much more easily outscore most new players, even more than before the change. The only real limit on longtime players dominating the lower Star Arenas for "Rank Rewards", is if those players choose either to skip the content or to not pursue much higher scoring in those Arenas.
So we're looking at "Rank Rewards" likely being dominated by longtime players who don't blow off the content, and new players with stacked rosters.