**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.
Options
When are you turning focus to r4 6*
Jerkobson
Posts: 163 ★★
Just wondering what people’s progression goals were before turning focus on getting a r4 6*?
How many r3?
Game progression?
Etc.
I hadn’t thought about it, the grind for the resources seemed too big (this coming from a reformed whale, FTP aside from unit card and july4/cyber) and I just wasn’t interested.
But looking at my resources and after sop, I’ll be at 20 r3 champs, which I know isn’t tops but who cares, who is using 20 champs at any one point.
I’m still far away from a r4, so I’ll focus on getting some more r3’s but what’s your line in the sand?
How many r3?
Game progression?
Etc.
I hadn’t thought about it, the grind for the resources seemed too big (this coming from a reformed whale, FTP aside from unit card and july4/cyber) and I just wasn’t interested.
But looking at my resources and after sop, I’ll be at 20 r3 champs, which I know isn’t tops but who cares, who is using 20 champs at any one point.
I’m still far away from a r4, so I’ll focus on getting some more r3’s but what’s your line in the sand?
2
Comments
I wish I could R4 my champs as soon as possible but I don't see it happening soon since most of the resources so far are pretty much pay to get.
When we can form those catalyst without breaking our wallets, that's the day for me.
Currently have 2 R3's
With a skill T5 waiting
Tech & mutant nearly formed
+2 from sop rewards.
Possibly 7 R3s in total soon'ish.
The t4cc drought is real though.
R4s aren't definitely on the cards for me anytime soon.
1 carina challenge to go and then will have 2.25 t6b and over 2 t3a, so getting close
When are people thinking about focusing resources management from taking champs to r3 to saving t5cc for the r4. Was the crux of my question.
What I think I will likely do is select one cosmic t5cc from the selectors to save for Surfer and one other class (probably Skill) to r3 another champion. Chances are likely that I will be able to form another cosmic t5cc by the time I have the t6b and T3A to r4 Surfer.
After r4ing Surfer, I’ll make the decision from there on whether or not to focus on building my r4 roster or expanding my r3 one.
Second, the purpose to reducing the difficulty of Act 6 was not just to nerf it specifically, it was to change the way the difficulty was designed in the content, in part to reduce it, but also in part to eliminate a design decision retroactively that was also being used for future content: the overuse of attack (and to a lesser extent health) boosts. Most of the global changes to the content were due to that change. The rest were targeted changes to specific fights that the devs datamined to be especially problematic: in other words they had completion success rates far lower than originally intended. If those changes did not improve those metrics, they would have gone back and changed them again. The fact that they didn't suggests they did in fact change the rate at which players successfully got past those fights. And independent of that, there's very strong anecdotal evidence that players are proceeding through Act 6 at a faster rate than before. Every Thronebreaker has to be able to do that at least once.
But I think you're also missing the point. Was it worth changing Act 6? In my opinion, that question is irrelevant, because I believe Kabam was compelled to do so. Contrary to popular belief, it wasn't player complaints that caused Kabam to do that, and it wasn't even arguments like mine that caused them to suddenly reverse direction. From what I've been told, the decision to change direction for Act 7 and beyond, and to retroactively apply some of that design ethic to Act 6, was something that the devs were themselves struggling with internally, and things like the reaction to OG 7.1 beta and complaints like mine about Act 6 were at best catalysts to push them in a direction they were already heading. And they were heading in that direction because they saw what I saw: if the game didn't change direction, it would soon paint itself into a corner from which it wouldn't be able to get out of. They can see the numbers, the game would not survive if the majority of players get stuck somewhere in Act 6 and never get out, and thus never progress beyond a certain point. You then have two games, a finite Act 1 to Act 6 game where players reach the end, and then get stuck, and then quit, and a tiny group of players that are playing in a slowly shrinking end game no one wants to plow resources to support long term.
Or to put it another way, the devs didn't have to "nerf" Act 6. They could have updated their resumes instead. They chose survival.