ISO Resources
KerayZ
Member Posts: 220 ★★★
This will be very situational. I would just like to see what Kabam thinks about this topic. We have lots of places to farm ISO. You can farm ISO while also revive farming in ACT 4 so it's not completely horrible. Lately things have changed though and a lot of end game players are facing the ISO Shortage situation when ranking 6*'s. For the last two month's after completing content I am facing a huge lack of ISO while I slowly use all the end game progression rank up materials from ACT 6, ACT 7 and Variant 6. I'm not the only one in this boat I'm sure due to all the new content and materials.
My solution: when duping 4* champs we get x24 bricks of ISO. When you dupe a 5* champ you get x24 bricks of ISO. When duping a 6* champ you get x24 bricks of ISO. I'm sure this is great for the coders that we get the same ISO for each star level but it would be nice to see an increase in bricks for 5* and 6*.
Perhaps 4* x24; 5* x30; 6* x34?
I know it's not that big of a deal but it's a quality of life change that I would love to see. This thread is not a complaint. Just an idea. Thanks for reading!
My solution: when duping 4* champs we get x24 bricks of ISO. When you dupe a 5* champ you get x24 bricks of ISO. When duping a 6* champ you get x24 bricks of ISO. I'm sure this is great for the coders that we get the same ISO for each star level but it would be nice to see an increase in bricks for 5* and 6*.
Perhaps 4* x24; 5* x30; 6* x34?
I know it's not that big of a deal but it's a quality of life change that I would love to see. This thread is not a complaint. Just an idea. Thanks for reading!
Post edited by Kabam Porthos on
27
Comments
1 Fire the current developing team and hire some people that can actually FIX THIS GAME !
2 Dupping A6* champ should give 275 6* shards and 35 T5 iso
3 increase ALL storage for all resources , especially for T4CC , T4B, T5CC, T5B ,T1A and T2A
4 the ability to sell T4CC for T5CC .. and don't give me the .."Game economy will break" excuse. We all know that's BS
5 a new Featured Chrystal , a NEXUS for Dual Class chrystals
6 keep the T1A in as a constant reward for all difficulty ,once u get Cavalier u start getting T2A and no more T1A in daily rewards or in monthly events .. I have to waist my TIME and energy in game , playing the Heroic and Master difficulty just for the T1A .. because in the higher difficulty I get only T2A .. so put T1A in rewards for ALL difficulty levels ,that way I don't waist TIME doing Master and Heroic difficulty ,some of us have lives outside this game ..
The iso on duping should be changed to something like that:
4* 24 t5c iso , remains the same
5* 48 t5c iso , 2x of what currently is
6* 72 t5c or 96 t5c or 48 t6c iso , to cover the increased 6* iso demands
In addition 3* dupes from 2 t5c to 6 t5c, and increased availability of 4* shards or replacement of PHC shards with GMC shards at featured arenas, would probably solve the iso shortage entirely.
Purely an example, but this isn't far from the truth... Kabam seems to think you only need t1a as a low level player so it's pretty available in small allies and early progression. Then, they require more AND bigger rankups material (T2A as an example) when you get in the next level of content and start ranking up 5* to R3 and higher. At that point, you start earning T2Q more and the t1a flow dries up...but you need even more t1a than previously too!
So you need even more t1a, but you're actually getting less because you've progressed past the part of the game that gave it to you.
The same applies to iso, gold, etc. Kabam made gold more available, so what's the hold up with making iso more available to help people rank up all these new 5 and 6* they're throwing at us as rewards? It's really not as much fun to get a bunch of champs and have to sit on them. Sure, there is some game economy where we should have to save and rank wisely, but we're at a tipping point, where it's just wait and wait and the game gets boring as a result.
So for example the T1A bottleneck is a much "better" bottleneck for players than the T2A bottleneck, in my opinion. The T1A bottleneck has more ways for players to work around it: there are more targeted ways for players to temporarily boost their acquisition of T1A: they can buy them in the glory store in relatively large amounts, and they can grind for them in a relatively short arena for a significant number of them. On the other hand, the T2A bottleneck arises from the weird situation that most of the ways to earn T2A also earn T5B, and that T5B has high prerequisites of T2A to spend. So the very act of trying to get more T2A often earns even more T5B, which perpetuates that imbalance. And even now, I think T2A in the glory store is not quite available enough to overcome this imbalance. Worse, that imbalance is amplified if you rank up 5* instead of 6* which narrows player options even further.
The ISO bottleneck seems to be one that doesn't constrain player options more than intended. By your own admission, there are many avenues to try to alleviate the ISO bottleneck, most involving acquiring champion crystals and shards that themselves are things players would ordinarily want to pursue regardless. So I don't think its a good idea to push for mitigating this bottleneck, because that would just shift the bottleneck to some other resource that is likely to be harder for players to manage.
To really answer that question, I need to ask and answer a different question: should it cost more ISO to rank up a 5* champion as it does to rank up a 4* champion? MCOC decided that yes, it should. 5* champions are harder, and more expensive to rank up. This adds a kind of "friction" to the game, where as a player progresses the *accessibility* of 5* champions opens up first, but for a period of time they have to choose between spending less resources on ranking up more 4* champs, or spend more resources on ranking up fewer 5* champs. There's a transition between the two where it isn't obvious what the optimal strategy is, and players are left to decide for themselves. That's a good thing.
But suppose 5* champion duplication generated far more ISO than 4* duplication, such that it took about the same amount of 5* dups to rank up a 5* champ as it took 4* dups to rank up a 4* champ. A lot of that scaling expense would disappear. There would still be catalyst costs which scaled, but the expense of rank up would be substantially less, and the overlap in rank up costs during the transition would be smaller. There would be a lot more incentive to jump from ranking 4* champs to 5* champs. Personally, I don't think that would be good for the game, although there are probably people who would disagree. I suspect the developers aren't among them though.
Whether 5* champs "should" generate *exactly the same* ISO from duplication as 4* champs is asking the wrong question: the right question is whether the ISO should scale. Once you decide it shouldn't, setting them to be the same is simply the simple choice. Whether it should be a little higher or a little lower is quibbling over unimportant details.
The question then is whether this situation extrapolates cleanly to 6* champs. And to be honest, I'm not sure it does. The same forces still apply between 5* and 6* champs in general as did 4* and 5* champs in the past. But I think Kabam messing with 6* scaling and some other factors (in particular high Cavaliers and Thronebreakers are pushed towards ranking 6* champs much more than UC players were pushed towards ranking 5* champs) might change that situation enough to make the ISO sub-economy different. But I currently have no evidence yet that it does to a sufficiently high degree.
So I'd say that at the moment, I don't have a good reason to believe ISO duplication from 6* champs should be higher than it is now. And I think if someone wants to make a convincing argument that it should be higher, they should be able to answer the question of why it costs so much more ISO to rank up 6* champs as 5* champs as 4* champs. The devs did that deliberately. They wanted those costs to go up, not just on an absolute basis but also on a relative basis. Meaning: it is harder for a Thronebreaker with a large roster and a larger champion crystal earning capacity to earn enough ISO to rank up their 6* champs as it is for a lower player with a lower roster and a lower champion crystal earning capability to earn enough ISO to rank up their 4* champs. It is deliberately harder. You can ask the devs to add more ISO to the game for 5* and 6* duplication, but if you don't convince them to directly change their minds about the rationale for this increasing cost they'll just make the ISO costs for future rank ups even higher in response.
There has to be a balance in the economy of scale if the system wants to be sustainable. Even in real life, we need to make changes to the economy to offset inflation and cost of living increases over time. If the cost of resources go up, there has to be a way for people to be able to reasonably obtain them or the market will bottom out eventually and were almost there with iso now.
This game has its own economy, yet even though the in game cost of living has gone up considerably with the introduction of 5* and then again with 6*, there has been nothing to offset it, at least as far as ISO goes.
I guess they're just banking on players accepting it, but there will be a breaking point for many as the wait time for rank ups continues to increase along with player frustrations. This is an easily fixable situation where iso accumulation could be increased in a reasonable and meaningful way, but Kabam just prefers to be silent on the matter which is frustrating players who are earning the new champs and other rank up materials to take them up, bit are bottlenecked for no good reason.
4* - 25
5* - 35
6* - 45 T5 or 25 T6
Now if only an actual kabam employee will consider it. I dont think the folks on this thread saying they are iso short, on youtube and reddit as well, are just making things up whether the company intended it or not. This is one simple thing that doesn't make any sense long term. So point still stands. 5* and 6* having the same iso stacks as 4* is just silly and we would like to see a change.