Is T1a really an issue?

Is it really an issue. I hear folks complain about how it's hard to get and there is a shortage...Well, how about this? Don't upgrade that 4* champ that you never play anyways.

Comments

JamesM

I appreciate those arguing that it isn't an issue, you have kept this topic in the forums and gave it visibility. So maybe, thanks to you, it can be resolved.

DNA3000

LeNoirFaineant wrote: »

CoatHang3r wrote: »

I’m not even against it. I’m arguing against the unreasonable, hyperbolic, deceitful, deceptive, shortsighted, etc points of view. I’d like a little more to increase the rate I can bring up my champions, it’s really as simple as that but people want to make a mountain out of this molehill. Also if I was given access to unlimited resources I wouldn’t have much reason to keep playing and it would kill the game for me.

@CoatHang3r fair enough. Given @DNA3000's statement that t1alphas are no less available I'm willing to accept that as he is the most reasonable person on this forum, myself included lol. I still feel like they used to be available more from other sources like the civil war but whatever. But especially now that the uncollected monthly quest will grant a full 5* crystal every month and 5*s will be coming faster I do feel as though the availability of T1 alphas isn't keeping up with the progression of the game. I agree with your point that resources being too available could kill the game. I've never called for them to open the flood gates. They added t4 basic frags back to aq. If they would put some alpha frags in solo quests or whatever I'd be satisfied. Is that reasonable?

I wouldn't be, ironically because that would not be enough to address the issue. To the extent that there is any issue at all, it is with the increased availability of 5* champions increasing the rate at which a player could burn T1A. Anything that increases the availability of T1A by a small amount globally does two bad things in my opinion. It gives more alphas to players who don't need them yet and are already overflowing in them, and it doesn't give significantly more to players that will face increasing demands on them.

No matter how available we make T1A, if 5* champions are going to continue to be more available the T1As will continue to fall behind demand. You would just have to keep cranking them up higher and higher, which makes no sense to me when you could attack the problem directly and once and for all by better balancing the 5* requirements for T1 alpha verses all other rank up resources. I think changing T1A requirements from 5-5-6 to 2-3-4 reduces the costs enough to bring T1A demands back into line with other rank up resources while still being higher than the 4* rank up demands. It also correctly makes it more expensive to rank up to rank 3 than rank 2 (in terms of T1A). And this scales with higher 5* availability.

Putting a little bit of fragments here and there in my opinion makes it look like they are doing something without having to actually do anything. In general, I don't like token efforts. If players don't look at them closely enough they can stop complaints, but I don't think you should manipulate your players' perceptions in that way.

Lurker

I agree that 5* cost reduction along the lines that @DNA3000 suggest is the "right" answer, but reducing the cost of 5* rank up at this point will cause a whole new "wailing and gnashing of teeth" from players who feel they should be refunded the cost difference.

DNA3000

Lurker wrote: »

I agree that 5* cost reduction along the lines that @DNA3000 suggest is the "right" answer, but reducing the cost of 5* rank up at this point will cause a whole new "wailing and gnashing of teeth" from players who feel they should be refunded the cost difference.

That's certainly a possibility, but the same possibility occurred when they introduced 6* shards to the game. A few players complained that it wasn't fair and they should be retroactively awarded those shards, but they were a tiny minority and ultimately they were ignored. A cost reduction could cause some players to complain, but I would hope the majority would see it as a win for everyone and tell them what to do with their complaints.

IAmNotUrMom

Fanoin wrote: »

I find this amusing at any one time in have about 5 or.more t1a in my garbage pail. With 35 4* at r3 12 at r4 3 at r5 and two 5* at r2. My bottle neck is a shortage of t4cc. So for high level players it's is t1a for lower folks it is t44cc my rating 211k

There will always be bottleneck resources no matter what level you are at. For newer players it seems to be t3 class catalysts. For mid-level players (advanced tier of AQ) I would say that it is t4 basic catalysts or t4 class catalysts depending on what map you are running. If you are high advanced tier and swapping between advanced and expert brackets then you are most likely running map 5 and going to be getting lots of t4 basic fragments but you will get no t1 alpha catalysts. That is why people who run map 5 complain about never having enough t1 alphas to rank up our 5*s.

unknown

This content has been removed.

CoatHang3r

Just did some minor investigation on one of the tubers alpha shortage for perspective, given they published a video today about it.

On oct 26 there was a live stream of a 5* Blade hunt consisting of 5 crystals. In that opening they obtained a GR,CB and Sparky. In an opening of 1 5* Blade crystal published on oct 28 they obtained a 5* Karnak. Now on dec 2 they published a progression video which showcased their r3 5* GR, Karnak and sparky with a r2 CB.

In the progression video published dec 2 they had 3 alphas in their overflow for a total of 15 t1a on hand after spending 35 t1a to rank the previously mentioned champions. That is enough t1a to rank 10 5* in that month. They also noted they had a t1a alpha shortage, Taking the piss.

They then publish an alpha shortage video today..../facepalm

DNA3000

IAmNotUrMom wrote: »

Fanoin wrote: »

I find this amusing at any one time in have about 5 or.more t1a in my garbage pail. With 35 4* at r3 12 at r4 3 at r5 and two 5* at r2. My bottle neck is a shortage of t4cc. So for high level players it's is t1a for lower folks it is t44cc my rating 211k

There will always be bottleneck resources no matter what level you are at. For newer players it seems to be t3 class catalysts. For mid-level players (advanced tier of AQ) I would say that it is t4 basic catalysts or t4 class catalysts depending on what map you are running. If you are high advanced tier and swapping between advanced and expert brackets then you are most likely running map 5 and going to be getting lots of t4 basic fragments but you will get no t1 alpha catalysts. That is why people who run map 5 complain about never having enough t1 alphas to rank up our 5*s.

It is important to recognize this works both ways. There will always be bottlenecks in a progression game like this, so the existence of a bottleneck doesn't prove there is a problem. But by the same token, it is not true that all randomly selected resource limits are equally valid: there is such a thing as a wrongly set resource cost. But if the bottlenecks themselves are not considered direct evidence of a resource costs problem, you must have a different way to assess if there is a problem. Otherwise you have a blind spot in your game design.

So eliminating all player complaints for a moment, if you look at the rank up costs for 4* champions, and you look at the rank up costs for 5* champions, given the current availability of all of those resources, what would you set the T1A rank up costs to be for 5* champions, if you had to set them initially? What should guide that decision, and how would you know if you set them wrong if the existence of a bottleneck was not useful information to make that determination?

I say, we look at the relative proportions between the availability of the different resources as players can earn them in the game, and compare that to the proportionality of the costs of rank up. With some margin for judgment and tweaking, the numbers should be roughly similar in my judgment. They currently are not. Since they are not, what's the justification for making T1A costs three to five times higher for 5* champion rank ups than analogous 4* champion rank ups, when there is no such large cost increase for tier 4 catalysts?

To put it another way, if 6* champions followed the same pattern for T2A that 5* champions did for T1A, then ranking up one 6* champion from rank 1 to rank 2 will cost 13 T2As. That's how unusual the T1A costs are compared to all other rank up costs for all ranks and rarities.

IAmNotUrMom

DNA3000 wrote: »

IAmNotUrMom wrote: »

Fanoin wrote: »

I find this amusing at any one time in have about 5 or.more t1a in my garbage pail. With 35 4* at r3 12 at r4 3 at r5 and two 5* at r2. My bottle neck is a shortage of t4cc. So for high level players it's is t1a for lower folks it is t44cc my rating 211k

There will always be bottleneck resources no matter what level you are at. For newer players it seems to be t3 class catalysts. For mid-level players (advanced tier of AQ) I would say that it is t4 basic catalysts or t4 class catalysts depending on what map you are running. If you are high advanced tier and swapping between advanced and expert brackets then you are most likely running map 5 and going to be getting lots of t4 basic fragments but you will get no t1 alpha catalysts. That is why people who run map 5 complain about never having enough t1 alphas to rank up our 5*s.

It is important to recognize this works both ways. There will always be bottlenecks in a progression game like this, so the existence of a bottleneck doesn't prove there is a problem. But by the same token, it is not true that all randomly selected resource limits are equally valid: there is such a thing as a wrongly set resource cost. But if the bottlenecks themselves are not considered direct evidence of a resource costs problem, you must have a different way to assess if there is a problem. Otherwise you have a blind spot in your game design.

So eliminating all player complaints for a moment, if you look at the rank up costs for 4* champions, and you look at the rank up costs for 5* champions, given the current availability of all of those resources, what would you set the T1A rank up costs to be for 5* champions, if you had to set them initially? What should guide that decision, and how would you know if you set them wrong if the existence of a bottleneck was not useful information to make that determination?

I say, we look at the relative proportions between the availability of the different resources as players can earn them in the game, and compare that to the proportionality of the costs of rank up. With some margin for judgment and tweaking, the numbers should be roughly similar in my judgment. They currently are not. Since they are not, what's the justification for making T1A costs three to five times higher for 5* champion rank ups than analogous 4* champion rank ups, when there is no such large cost increase for tier 4 catalysts?

To put it another way, if 6* champions followed the same pattern for T2A that 5* champions did for T1A, then ranking up one 6* champion from rank 1 to rank 2 will cost 13 T2As. That's how unusual the T1A costs are compared to all other rank up costs for all ranks and rarities.

You completely missed my point and have made this a glorified post for you to present your argument for revising rank up requirements for 5*. Great job.

DNA3000

IAmNotUrMom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

IAmNotUrMom wrote: »

Fanoin wrote: »

I find this amusing at any one time in have about 5 or.more t1a in my garbage pail. With 35 4* at r3 12 at r4 3 at r5 and two 5* at r2. My bottle neck is a shortage of t4cc. So for high level players it's is t1a for lower folks it is t44cc my rating 211k

There will always be bottleneck resources no matter what level you are at. For newer players it seems to be t3 class catalysts. For mid-level players (advanced tier of AQ) I would say that it is t4 basic catalysts or t4 class catalysts depending on what map you are running. If you are high advanced tier and swapping between advanced and expert brackets then you are most likely running map 5 and going to be getting lots of t4 basic fragments but you will get no t1 alpha catalysts. That is why people who run map 5 complain about never having enough t1 alphas to rank up our 5*s.

It is important to recognize this works both ways. There will always be bottlenecks in a progression game like this, so the existence of a bottleneck doesn't prove there is a problem. But by the same token, it is not true that all randomly selected resource limits are equally valid: there is such a thing as a wrongly set resource cost. But if the bottlenecks themselves are not considered direct evidence of a resource costs problem, you must have a different way to assess if there is a problem. Otherwise you have a blind spot in your game design.

So eliminating all player complaints for a moment, if you look at the rank up costs for 4* champions, and you look at the rank up costs for 5* champions, given the current availability of all of those resources, what would you set the T1A rank up costs to be for 5* champions, if you had to set them initially? What should guide that decision, and how would you know if you set them wrong if the existence of a bottleneck was not useful information to make that determination?

I say, we look at the relative proportions between the availability of the different resources as players can earn them in the game, and compare that to the proportionality of the costs of rank up. With some margin for judgment and tweaking, the numbers should be roughly similar in my judgment. They currently are not. Since they are not, what's the justification for making T1A costs three to five times higher for 5* champion rank ups than analogous 4* champion rank ups, when there is no such large cost increase for tier 4 catalysts?

To put it another way, if 6* champions followed the same pattern for T2A that 5* champions did for T1A, then ranking up one 6* champion from rank 1 to rank 2 will cost 13 T2As. That's how unusual the T1A costs are compared to all other rank up costs for all ranks and rarities.

You completely missed my point and have made this a glorified post for you to present your argument for revising rank up requirements for 5*. Great job.

You completely missed my point and have made this post to attempt to appear clever. Ill-advised.

Thawnim

I personally agree that you will eventually find yourself lacking something that you need. Whether it is t1 alpha, t4 basic, t4 class catalysts, or even gold.

DNA3000

Thawnim wrote: »

I personally agree that you will eventually find yourself lacking something that you need. Whether it is t1 alpha, t4 basic, t4 class catalysts, or even gold.

That's not in dispute as far as I'm aware. Is someone taking the other side of this statement?

Speeds80

Coathanger even mentioned earlier in another one of these discussions that he felt if there was any problem it was the 5* alpha rankup cost was a bit off, I completely agree,I would definitely rather just be able to r2 my 5* champs without using a weeks worth of glory than grind and extra few hour in alpha arena. But yeah I don't see the need to make them universally available, No need to change the ratios for those that do have enough eg map 3 alliances, as mentioned earlier not only did they increase the alpha use 5 fold for the 5* rankup to 4* equivalent, they actually dropped the t4b requirement. In terms of the seatin video I don't think he was being funny in any way and once again coathanger your maths is being conveniently skewed, ranking 10 5* to r2 In One month is not many people goals, you don't save for months to spin feature crystals to r2 them, he got two r4 worthy champs and has the other resources to rank them so bang that's 32 of the alpha accounted for on only two champs. the fact he had 50 on hand only proves he had been spending lots of loyalty on them and planning for the 5* spin, the fact he has multiple 5* sitting on r1 and would like to have some fun in the game trying them out. Was not comedy, it was a valid point,

IAmNotUrMom

DNA3000 wrote: »

IAmNotUrMom wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

IAmNotUrMom wrote: »

Fanoin wrote: »

I find this amusing at any one time in have about 5 or.more t1a in my garbage pail. With 35 4* at r3 12 at r4 3 at r5 and two 5* at r2. My bottle neck is a shortage of t4cc. So for high level players it's is t1a for lower folks it is t44cc my rating 211k

There will always be bottleneck resources no matter what level you are at. For newer players it seems to be t3 class catalysts. For mid-level players (advanced tier of AQ) I would say that it is t4 basic catalysts or t4 class catalysts depending on what map you are running. If you are high advanced tier and swapping between advanced and expert brackets then you are most likely running map 5 and going to be getting lots of t4 basic fragments but you will get no t1 alpha catalysts. That is why people who run map 5 complain about never having enough t1 alphas to rank up our 5*s.

It is important to recognize this works both ways. There will always be bottlenecks in a progression game like this, so the existence of a bottleneck doesn't prove there is a problem. But by the same token, it is not true that all randomly selected resource limits are equally valid: there is such a thing as a wrongly set resource cost. But if the bottlenecks themselves are not considered direct evidence of a resource costs problem, you must have a different way to assess if there is a problem. Otherwise you have a blind spot in your game design.

So eliminating all player complaints for a moment, if you look at the rank up costs for 4* champions, and you look at the rank up costs for 5* champions, given the current availability of all of those resources, what would you set the T1A rank up costs to be for 5* champions, if you had to set them initially? What should guide that decision, and how would you know if you set them wrong if the existence of a bottleneck was not useful information to make that determination?

I say, we look at the relative proportions between the availability of the different resources as players can earn them in the game, and compare that to the proportionality of the costs of rank up. With some margin for judgment and tweaking, the numbers should be roughly similar in my judgment. They currently are not. Since they are not, what's the justification for making T1A costs three to five times higher for 5* champion rank ups than analogous 4* champion rank ups, when there is no such large cost increase for tier 4 catalysts?

To put it another way, if 6* champions followed the same pattern for T2A that 5* champions did for T1A, then ranking up one 6* champion from rank 1 to rank 2 will cost 13 T2As. That's how unusual the T1A costs are compared to all other rank up costs for all ranks and rarities.

You completely missed my point and have made this a glorified post for you to present your argument for revising rank up requirements for 5*. Great job.

You completely missed my point and have made this post to attempt to appear clever. Ill-advised.

No attempt at being clever. Just pointing out that you completely missed the point of my post. But thanks, you have now officially given me reason to test the blocking feature in the forums.

Speeds80

Thawnims point has been addressed multiple times, the alpha as a bottleneck leaves champs at ranks that they are unplayable, so it makes the least sense rather than t4bs t4cs and t2as all of which cap ranking at an at least playable level in terms of at least arena and say even having fun when you grind through medium event for hours for that one extra t1a a month

Speeds80

Nobody has yet argued that point, does it make a bit much sense

DNA3000

Speeds80 wrote: »

Thawnims point has been addressed multiple times, the alpha as a bottleneck leaves champs at ranks that they are unplayable, so it makes the least sense rather than t4bs t4cs and t2as all of which cap ranking at an at least playable level in terms of at least arena and say even having fun when you grind through medium event for hours for that one extra t1a a month

How do you get that point from "you will eventually find yourself lacking something that you need. Whether it is t1 alpha, t4 basic, t4 class catalysts, or even gold." It sounds like his point is the same one @IAmNotUrMom was making when he said there will always be a bottleneck, which is that there will always be a bottleneck.

DNA3000

Speeds80 wrote: »

Nobody has yet argued that point, does it make a bit much sense

Someone previously (I don't remember who) made the argument that if a bottleneck exists, it should be a "higher" tier resource than T1A. But T2A already is a bottleneck for rank up to rank 4, so the only two other candidates are T4CC and T4B. Except we just had a bunch of adjustments to make them more available so knocking them down seems illogical and raising everything else to match them seems like ratcheting (meaning: the justification for increasing the availability of T4B and T4CC was originally invalid).

From a purely progressional standpoint the logical place to put the bottleneck prior to R4 is T4CC. But that train seems to have left the station for high tier players.

Speeds80

I'm not sure what's even going. On or why I'm being flagged? Ive said multiple times there will always be a bottleneck, I don't disagree with that. I thought thawnim was saying that it might as well be t1as. my point that I'm saying no one has argued against. is that t1as are a strange bottleneck as their choke points make for unplayable characters , the other rankup materials make more sense as bottlenecks

Thawnim

DNA3000 wrote: »

Speeds80 wrote: »

Thawnims point has been addressed multiple times, the alpha as a bottleneck leaves champs at ranks that they are unplayable, so it makes the least sense rather than t4bs t4cs and t2as all of which cap ranking at an at least playable level in terms of at least arena and say even having fun when you grind through medium event for hours for that one extra t1a a month

How do you get that point from "you will eventually find yourself lacking something that you need. Whether it is t1 alpha, t4 basic, t4 class catalysts, or even gold." It sounds like his point is the same one @IAmNotUrMom was making when he said there will always be a bottleneck, which is that there will always be a bottleneck.

Sorry for the confusion, but I guess I should have been more clear. On my main account (500k rating) I am running low on t1 alpha catalysts and gold. On my alt account (240k rating) I am running low on t4 class catalysts and on t4 basic catalysts. Admittedly I do not do enough arena to keep up on gold, but I am agreeing that t1 alphas are an issue for some players, just as t4 basic or t4 class catalysts are issues for other players.

DNA3000

Speeds80 wrote: »

I'm not sure what's even going. On or why I'm being flagged? Ive said multiple times there will always be a bottleneck, I don't disagree with that. I thought thawnim was saying that it might as well be t1as. my point that I'm saying no one has argued against. is that t1as are a strange bottleneck as their choke points make for unplayable characters , the other rankup materials make more sense as bottlenecks

Flagging is essentially a quick way to PM a moderator and ask them to read a post and review it. Personally, I have no problem with anyone asking the moderators to read my posts. In fact, flagging compels them to read them in their entirety. As long as I'm operating within the rules of the forum, I consider it free advertising.

It is also abuse of the forum if it is done maliciously where no violation exists, so while someone can run around flagging posts for a little while, it seems they eventually get shut down or warned off. So I wouldn't worry about it.

Thawnim

Speeds80 wrote: »

I'm not sure what's even going. On or why I'm being flagged? Ive said multiple times there will always be a bottleneck, I don't disagree with that. I thought thawnim was saying that it might as well be t1as. my point that I'm saying no one has argued against. is that t1as are a strange bottleneck as their choke points make for unplayable characters , the other rankup materials make more sense as bottlenecks

I don't like it being t1 alphas. I would prefer it be something like t4 class catalysts and t2 alphas since you cannot sell those. But then that begs the argument that we need increased item capacities and we all know kabam wins that one too.

TCRx

I am not at the top tier but I am getting there. I pull 1-2 5*'s per month now. I have had 24 t4bs for many months now and I regularly have to decide if I should sell them before they expire or rank up another 4* to use them.

I easily use 10-15 a month and have maintained my excess and I have yet to purchase one with glory.

I am more patient with my upgrades, though. I am sitting on a lot of t4cc waiting for decent 5*s to use them on. Maybe I would be singing a different tune if I was less particular with my upgrades.

DNA3000

Thawnim wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

Speeds80 wrote: »

Thawnims point has been addressed multiple times, the alpha as a bottleneck leaves champs at ranks that they are unplayable, so it makes the least sense rather than t4bs t4cs and t2as all of which cap ranking at an at least playable level in terms of at least arena and say even having fun when you grind through medium event for hours for that one extra t1a a month

How do you get that point from "you will eventually find yourself lacking something that you need. Whether it is t1 alpha, t4 basic, t4 class catalysts, or even gold." It sounds like his point is the same one @IAmNotUrMom was making when he said there will always be a bottleneck, which is that there will always be a bottleneck.

Sorry for the confusion, but I guess I should have been more clear. On my main account (500k rating) I am running low on t1 alpha catalysts and gold. On my alt account (240k rating) I am running low on t4 class catalysts and on t4 basic catalysts. Admittedly I do not do enough arena to keep up on gold, but I am agreeing that t1 alphas are an issue for some players, just as t4 basic or t4 class catalysts are issues for other players.

It is pretty obviously an issue for players. I don't think anyone can reasonably dispute that. The question is to what degree is it the fault of the players, and to what degree is it the fault of the game itself and the way it makes resources available. It appears to be some of column A and some of column B.

There's also a side issue of what is reasonable when we talk about availability. For example, if it was possible to dramatically increase your T1A supply by dropping your entire alliance down to the advanced tier (running Map 3) that would be availability in theory, but I don't think that is reasonable availability in practice. I don't think this actually works either way, but even if it did I don't think the game would be designed reasonably if the players had to do extreme things like that to work around a bad bottleneck.

The question both threads danced around but didn't take on head-on is what is a reasonable rate of upgrade? Just because you're capable of earning 5 5* champions a day, does that mean the game must offer you a way to upgrade them all? Probably not. But certainly there should be some target the game is aiming for or should aim for.

Whatever it is, the game itself is likely to pass that target for uncollected players in 2018, so its an interesting question to consider. I wish the devs would address it, but I'm skeptical they would.

GroundedWisdom

My main point is we can't call it a shortage when it's not. The perception is subjective, albeit en mass. "I can't Rank fast enough. I have a Resource that I keep running out of. Other people run out of that Resource. The game doesn't have enough." What's lacking is the introspect as to why that Resource is expending so quickly. That doesn't really lie with the availability in this case. It's spending habits and reaping focuses.

RagamugginGunner

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

My main point is we can't call it a shortage when it's not. The perception is subjective, albeit en mass. "I can't Rank fast enough. I have a Resource that I keep running out of. Other people run out of that Resource. The game doesn't have enough." What's lacking is the introspect as to why that Resource is expending so quickly. That doesn't really lie with the availability in this case. It's spending habits and reaping focuses.

Wrong.

GroundedWisdom

You know, spamming that after every comment I make doesn't actually make my statements wrong.

Nexus_UY_Scuti

It is an issue for some players.

Whereas others don't have an issue with it.

LeNoirFaineant

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

You know, spamming that after every comment I make doesn't actually make my statements wrong.

That's true. It's their inherent wrongness that does that lol.

DarkestDestroyer

RagamugginGunner wrote: »

GroundedWisdom wrote: »

My main point is we can't call it a shortage when it's not. The perception is subjective, albeit en mass. "I can't Rank fast enough. I have a Resource that I keep running out of. Other people run out of that Resource. The game doesn't have enough." What's lacking is the introspect as to why that Resource is expending so quickly. That doesn't really lie with the availability in this case. It's spending habits and reaping focuses.

Wrong.

He's actually bang on the money!

How about you chill your bean out expecting to rank up daily