Why are people upset about 7 stars?

Literally people who have been playing for years quitting over 7 stars. If you can't play a game that changes things up why do you play it?

Comments

TimeGenesis

Im not upset per se of the introduction of 7 stars but am annoyed at the following things:

* No real content to challenge depth of 6 stars yet

* Difficulty seems to just go by increase in health pool and attack values, and fighting higher rarity champs. Want more innovative fights like EoP, SoP, even Gauntlet
* Still need to find better ways for champ acquisition. "Wish crystals" anyone? - I still want to acquire champs for all rarity.
* More and more champs being added and with the added rarity means less chance of pulling desired champs
* While they focus on this new rarity, plenty of areas in the contest remains stale. No update to gold crystals, awards remains stale, ISOs from dupes still the same as 4 stars. Paragon still gets 3 stars from cav crystals..and many others
* Plenty of champs still sitting in bench on people's rosters and doesnt really have real value.

Whilst I do get that roster reset is necessary for progression and health of the game. But I feel its still too soon to have this introduced.

[Edit
More runting here..maybe less peaceful comment

So we have just R4d and R3d a lot of champs and now you're telling me 7 stars will come out already? My time and resources spent on getting those champs to where they are feels wasted since I havent really had time to use them fully! ****]

LeNoirFaineant

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the game needs 7*s. I've yet to hear one person who is complaining about 7*s argue that the game would be in a better place if it had stopped progression with 5*s. The same complaints about 7*s were made when 6*s were announced, and it looks to me like we needed 6*s after all. Would we even have a game right now if 5*s were the top? It's precisely because so many people have stacked 6* rosters they are happy with that we need 7*s. The game will stagnate if we have nothing new to chase after. I'm not convinced that relics are a good idea, but we need 7*s.
I’ll challenge this and ask where would 7* be needed in the game at this time? Are we expecting a new game mode where it will benefit greatly from them or a ramped up EoP?

I agree with @BitterSteel's reply so I won't reiterate it. I think the most important reason we need them is to prevent stagnation. If people feel like they've won the game and the only thing to do is go through the motions of EQ, AQ, etc., the game won't be in a good place. I would also add that for everyone saying the problem is that it is too soon, I'd rather have them too soon than too late. Too soon is annoying. Too late is potentially game killing. I suspect that by the time 7*s really start to take over it won't feel like it's too soon anymore. People forget how long it took for 6*s to really replace 5*s after they were announced.

LeNoirFaineant

Eventually I agree, the natural progression of the game should lead to 7 *s, but this is way too soon and just feels like a cash grab. For 90% of the player base 7*s won't even be a relevant part of their roster until months after they're released.

If they waited until 90% of the player base were ready for 7*s it would be way to late.The fact that they won't be relevant for a long time is why they need to come sooner rather than later. The full transition takes several years. When 6*s came out, they weren't a relevant part of rosters for 90% of the player base until months after they were released. Were 6*s also a cash grab?

DNA3000

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the game needs 7*s. I've yet to hear one person who is complaining about 7*s argue that the game would be in a better place if it had stopped progression with 5*s. The same complaints about 7*s were made when 6*s were announced, and it looks to me like we needed 6*s after all. Would we even have a game right now if 5*s were the top? It's precisely because so many people have stacked 6* rosters they are happy with that we need 7*s. The game will stagnate if we have nothing new to chase after. I'm not convinced that relics are a good idea, but we need 7*s.
I’ll challenge this and ask where would 7* be needed in the game at this time? Are we expecting a new game mode where it will benefit greatly from them or a ramped up EoP?

That's not the right question. Or rather, this is not the question the developers ask. The developers ask "at what point is it time to introduce a new rarity?" And the answer to that question requires understanding what rarities are for.

Without getting too deep in the weeds, rarities exist because of champion dilution. The more champions that exist, and more importantly the more champions that players have, the harder it is to make new champs that are meaningful to chase after. When a player has only ten champs, the odds of the next champ they acquire being useful to them in a meaningful way is very high. When they have two hundred champs, the odds are increasingly low. New rarities exist to periodically reset the chase at the top.

So really, the question is not "when will players need 7* champs?" The question actually is "at what point do players stop needing 6* champs?" And the answer to this question is a complex one, because different players need champs for different reasons. At the very top, players are chasing new champs for things like prestige, or marginal utility for war or battlegrounds. The people who have everything don't need something in particular, they need something different. Anything that will give them a marginal advantage over their peers.

The players just below them don't need 7* champs. In fact, they'd be happy if they were not introduced, because they are just getting comfortable with their 6* rosters. That's the problem. They are getting comfortable, and approaching the point where they don't need anything. The game needs players to need things, so that they either become more engaged with the game to grind for them, or spend money on them, or both. The game treats them like people on an exercise plan that is getting just easy enough that they no longer break a sweat. Time to ratchet up.

The players below *them* still need everything. They need stronger champs. They need more champs. But they are also completely out of the race at the top. They struggle for everything, and aren't generally competitive at the top of the game. These players need things, but if the game remained static would likely never get them. They would always be beaten out by the players above them, and they would always find content just a little too difficult for them. These people would probably eventually quit the game because they would get permanently stalled. But these players get a life line. All the stuff that is hard for them to get today, and would be hard for them to get forever, gets easier to get over time, because eventually the players at the top move on to the next thing. In doing so, they make room for these players to move up. What was originally hard, because it had to be hard, because otherwise the players at the top would get too bored, can now get easier because those people are no longer the target.

We tend to think about progression ladders like ladders. Players climb them. But that's actually not entirely accurate, because in progressional games the players climb up, but the ladder also drops down. At any one moment in time there are players who have a certain roster strength and a certain skill level, and that combination will get them only so far, and no farther. Over time, their roster will grow and their skills will grow, but even this is different for all players. For some players, their growth rate is sufficient to make meaningful progress in the game. For others it isn't. If the game itself didn't keep ratcheting upward, and making room for easier progress below, the game would have one fixed progression path. Everyone above the requirements moves on, everyone below gets stuck and quits. But with upward progressional expansion, fast players reach the top, slower players keep pace behind them, and the slowest players can still eventually be pulled forward with the game.

This is the fundamental role of the rarity system. It is about the global state of the game as a whole, not about what any one particular player wants or needs. Probably the biggest misconception about rarities is that they are supposed to be added when enough players need them to complete content. Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. It would be more correct to say they get added when players stop needing things, not when they start needing things. And then there's a trickle down effect that impacts everyone else differently, in a way difficult to replicate with something other than the rarity system.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Chatterofforums

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the game needs 7*s. I've yet to hear one person who is complaining about 7*s argue that the game would be in a better place if it had stopped progression with 5*s. The same complaints about 7*s were made when 6*s were announced, and it looks to me like we needed 6*s after all. Would we even have a game right now if 5*s were the top? It's precisely because so many people have stacked 6* rosters they are happy with that we need 7*s. The game will stagnate if we have nothing new to chase after. I'm not convinced that relics are a good idea, but we need 7*s.
I’ll challenge this and ask where would 7* be needed in the game at this time? Are we expecting a new game mode where it will benefit greatly from them or a ramped up EoP?

That's not the right question. Or rather, this is not the question the developers ask. The developers ask "at what point is it time to introduce a new rarity?" And the answer to that question requires understanding what rarities are for.

Without getting too deep in the weeds, rarities exist because of champion dilution. The more champions that exist, and more importantly the more champions that players have, the harder it is to make new champs that are meaningful to chase after. When a player has only ten champs, the odds of the next champ they acquire being useful to them in a meaningful way is very high. When they have two hundred champs, the odds are increasingly low. New rarities exist to periodically reset the chase at the top.

So really, the question is not "when will players need 7* champs?" The question actually is "at what point do players stop needing 6* champs?" And the answer to this question is a complex one, because different players need champs for different reasons. At the very top, players are chasing new champs for things like prestige, or marginal utility for war or battlegrounds. The people who have everything don't need something in particular, they need something different. Anything that will give them a marginal advantage over their peers.

The players just below them don't need 7* champs. In fact, they'd be happy if they were not introduced, because they are just getting comfortable with their 6* rosters. That's the problem. They are getting comfortable, and approaching the point where they don't need anything. The game needs players to need things, so that they either become more engaged with the game to grind for them, or spend money on them, or both. The game treats them like people on an exercise plan that is getting just easy enough that they no longer break a sweat. Time to ratchet up.

The players below *them* still need everything. They need stronger champs. They need more champs. But they are also completely out of the race at the top. They struggle for everything, and aren't generally competitive at the top of the game. These players need things, but if the game remained static would likely never get them. They would always be beaten out by the players above them, and they would always find content just a little too difficult for them. These people would probably eventually quit the game because they would get permanently stalled. But these players get a life line. All the stuff that is hard for them to get today, and would be hard for them to get forever, gets easier to get over time, because eventually the players at the top move on to the next thing. In doing so, they make room for these players to move up. What was originally hard, because it had to be hard, because otherwise the players at the top would get too bored, can now get easier because those people are no longer the target.

We tend to think about progression ladders like ladders. Players climb them. But that's actually not entirely accurate, because in progressional games the players climb up, but the ladder also drops down. At any one moment in time there are players who have a certain roster strength and a certain skill level, and that combination will get them only so far, and no farther. Over time, their roster will grow and their skills will grow, but even this is different for all players. For some players, their growth rate is sufficient to make meaningful progress in the game. For others it isn't. If the game itself didn't keep ratcheting upward, and making room for easier progress below, the game would have one fixed progression path. Everyone above the requirements moves on, everyone below gets stuck and quits. But with upward progressional expansion, fast players reach the top, slower players keep pace behind them, and the slowest players can still eventually be pulled forward with the game.

This is the fundamental role of the rarity system. It is about the global state of the game as a whole, not about what any one particular player wants or needs. Probably the biggest misconception about rarities is that they are supposed to be added when enough players need them to complete content. Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. It would be more correct to say they get added when players stop needing things, not when they start needing things. And then there's a trickle down effect that impacts everyone else differently, in a way difficult to replicate with something other than the rarity system.

I personally disagree with your question on what the developers ask. Especially with recent clear emphasis on monetization of everything possible.

I personally believe the powers that be ask something like "how can we make more profit" then someone says by "milking the whales" then they ask "how do we milk the whales more" then someone says "obviously by giving them a shiny new toy that will make all their previous purchases near obsolete", which leads the powers that be to tell the developers to implement this.

Okay, maybe that's not a word for word conversation, but don't be surprised if it's very close.

Da2Vero33Man

Here we go. Enjoy the laugh.

Wolverine: hey guys and gals, look what I found! A new kind of treasure chest but with 7* on it. What could be inside?

Bang! Smash! Claw! Claw!

Wow! Fancy gloves! Hmmm. +546.7 crit rate. Not bad.

Hyperion: Gloves? Are those the … ? Yes they are! The long lost Gloves of Light! With these I can hit harder! +1245.5 crit rate and my personal furies gain 20% potency! Alright!

Wolverine: WTF?! How come you get all that extra bonus?

Hyperion: Class specific. Here, try this belt. It’s yellow and feels warm. Maybe it double or triples your regen rate?

Wolverine: You get fancy gloves and I get a belt that looks and feels like urine?!

Ceder

7*'s are pointless and not needed, they're not needed to make content harder and they're not needed to make us more powerful, we're already getting relics and rank 5 6*'s

Demonzfyre

I think it’s the general disappointment which consists of:

1. Not really an innovative progression of the game
2. It’s like starting all over anew collecting champs. Imagine you pull a 7* drax or groot.

For myself I can say that I am not really amused as well. My whole alliance is more annoyed than exited but yeah. The hope is now on ascension

Not innovative? They've added 5 and 6*'s..... What would you have expected from a game that started with 1-4* champions? We've known from the begging it wouldn't be like Marvel Future Fight. You're basically saying 5 and 6*'s weren't innovative either.

Demonzfyre

I started to play this in March, 2015.

I am F2P.

My rating is 3.2m collection.

Only content left to do is 7.2 and beyond and Abyss.

Ive only 1 R4.

My point is: my 6* isnt even deep enough, im getting matched against crazy rosters on Gladiators Circuit, hell 6* R5 arent even available yet! And now 7* are already on the corner? If im this screwed, imagine players that are Cav and below...

We'll only be able to open 7*'s by spring next year which means 1-2 maybe for most with lots of duped 6*'s. Plus, you'll have ascensions and relics to help your 6*'s. Who even knows what it will take to take a 7* to R2. 6*'s will be the meta for a long time.

Buttehrs

7*'s are pointless and not needed, they're not needed to make content harder and they're not needed to make us more powerful, we're already getting relics and rank 5 6*'s

They are in fact needed. Relics and r5 are only very small increases. 7* will allow for far more of an increase.

Badrose

Wait... Did they announce 7*? Tell me when so I have a precise date to quit the game.

LeNoirFaineant

Wait... Did they announce 7*? Tell me when so I have a precise date to quit the game.

Why wait? If you are going to quit over something that was inevitable you should just do it. Make today the precise date. What would be the point in continuing to play?

Badrose

I think it’s the general disappointment which consists of:

1. Not really an innovative progression of the game
2. It’s like starting all over anew collecting champs. Imagine you pull a 7* drax or groot.

For myself I can say that I am not really amused as well. My whole alliance is more annoyed than exited but yeah. The hope is now on ascension
Not innovative? They've added 5 and 6*'s..... What would you have expected from a game that started with 1-4* champions? We've known from the begging it wouldn't be like Marvel Future Fight. You're basically saying 5 and 6*'s weren't innovative either.

Exactly. 5 or 6 stars were pointless. If they thought we needed more powerful characters, all they had to do was giving you the chance to improve your 4* to 5*, 5* to 6* or, even more simply, add LVLs to the current characters (5* R6 = 6* R1 and so on).

This is like starting the game from zero over and over again, in a greedy attemp to get money from us, nothing else.

Coppin

I think it’s the general disappointment which consists of:

1. Not really an innovative progression of the game
2. It’s like starting all over anew collecting champs. Imagine you pull a 7* drax or groot.

For myself I can say that I am not really amused as well. My whole alliance is more annoyed than exited but yeah. The hope is now on ascension
Not innovative? They've added 5 and 6*'s..... What would you have expected from a game that started with 1-4* champions? We've known from the begging it wouldn't be like Marvel Future Fight. You're basically saying 5 and 6*'s weren't innovative either.
Exactly. 5 or 6 stars were pointless. If they thought we needed more powerful characters, all they had to do was giving you the chance to improve your 4* to 5*, 5* to 6* or, even more simply, add LVLs to the current characters (5* R6 = 6* R1 and so on).

This is like starting the game from zero over and over again, in a greedy attemp to get money from us, nothing else.

Well stop giving them money then..

DrZola

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the game needs 7*s. I've yet to hear one person who is complaining about 7*s argue that the game would be in a better place if it had stopped progression with 5*s. The same complaints about 7*s were made when 6*s were announced, and it looks to me like we needed 6*s after all. Would we even have a game right now if 5*s were the top? It's precisely because so many people have stacked 6* rosters they are happy with that we need 7*s. The game will stagnate if we have nothing new to chase after. I'm not convinced that relics are a good idea, but we need 7*s.
I’ll challenge this and ask where would 7* be needed in the game at this time? Are we expecting a new game mode where it will benefit greatly from them or a ramped up EoP?

I agree with @BitterSteel's reply so I won't reiterate it. I think the most important reason we need them is to prevent stagnation. If people feel like they've won the game and the only thing to do is go through the motions of EQ, AQ, etc., the game won't be in a good place. I would also add that for everyone saying the problem is that it is too soon, I'd rather have them too soon than too late. Too soon is annoying. Too late is potentially game killing. I suspect that by the time 7*s really start to take over it won't feel like it's too soon anymore. People forget how long it took for 6*s to really replace 5*s after they were announced.

I’m still intrigued that the only way people can imagine to “prevent stagnation” is to add the same champs with an additional star and higher stats (plus some as yet to be determined bonus mechanic).

Dr. Zola

DNA3000

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the game needs 7*s. I've yet to hear one person who is complaining about 7*s argue that the game would be in a better place if it had stopped progression with 5*s. The same complaints about 7*s were made when 6*s were announced, and it looks to me like we needed 6*s after all. Would we even have a game right now if 5*s were the top? It's precisely because so many people have stacked 6* rosters they are happy with that we need 7*s. The game will stagnate if we have nothing new to chase after. I'm not convinced that relics are a good idea, but we need 7*s.
I’ll challenge this and ask where would 7* be needed in the game at this time? Are we expecting a new game mode where it will benefit greatly from them or a ramped up EoP?

That's not the right question. Or rather, this is not the question the developers ask. The developers ask "at what point is it time to introduce a new rarity?" And the answer to that question requires understanding what rarities are for.

Without getting too deep in the weeds, rarities exist because of champion dilution. The more champions that exist, and more importantly the more champions that players have, the harder it is to make new champs that are meaningful to chase after. When a player has only ten champs, the odds of the next champ they acquire being useful to them in a meaningful way is very high. When they have two hundred champs, the odds are increasingly low. New rarities exist to periodically reset the chase at the top.

So really, the question is not "when will players need 7* champs?" The question actually is "at what point do players stop needing 6* champs?" And the answer to this question is a complex one, because different players need champs for different reasons. At the very top, players are chasing new champs for things like prestige, or marginal utility for war or battlegrounds. The people who have everything don't need something in particular, they need something different. Anything that will give them a marginal advantage over their peers.

The players just below them don't need 7* champs. In fact, they'd be happy if they were not introduced, because they are just getting comfortable with their 6* rosters. That's the problem. They are getting comfortable, and approaching the point where they don't need anything. The game needs players to need things, so that they either become more engaged with the game to grind for them, or spend money on them, or both. The game treats them like people on an exercise plan that is getting just easy enough that they no longer break a sweat. Time to ratchet up.

The players below *them* still need everything. They need stronger champs. They need more champs. But they are also completely out of the race at the top. They struggle for everything, and aren't generally competitive at the top of the game. These players need things, but if the game remained static would likely never get them. They would always be beaten out by the players above them, and they would always find content just a little too difficult for them. These people would probably eventually quit the game because they would get permanently stalled. But these players get a life line. All the stuff that is hard for them to get today, and would be hard for them to get forever, gets easier to get over time, because eventually the players at the top move on to the next thing. In doing so, they make room for these players to move up. What was originally hard, because it had to be hard, because otherwise the players at the top would get too bored, can now get easier because those people are no longer the target.

We tend to think about progression ladders like ladders. Players climb them. But that's actually not entirely accurate, because in progressional games the players climb up, but the ladder also drops down. At any one moment in time there are players who have a certain roster strength and a certain skill level, and that combination will get them only so far, and no farther. Over time, their roster will grow and their skills will grow, but even this is different for all players. For some players, their growth rate is sufficient to make meaningful progress in the game. For others it isn't. If the game itself didn't keep ratcheting upward, and making room for easier progress below, the game would have one fixed progression path. Everyone above the requirements moves on, everyone below gets stuck and quits. But with upward progressional expansion, fast players reach the top, slower players keep pace behind them, and the slowest players can still eventually be pulled forward with the game.

This is the fundamental role of the rarity system. It is about the global state of the game as a whole, not about what any one particular player wants or needs. Probably the biggest misconception about rarities is that they are supposed to be added when enough players need them to complete content. Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. It would be more correct to say they get added when players stop needing things, not when they start needing things. And then there's a trickle down effect that impacts everyone else differently, in a way difficult to replicate with something other than the rarity system.
I personally disagree with your question on what the developers ask. Especially with recent clear emphasis on monetization of everything possible.

I personally believe the powers that be ask something like "how can we make more profit" then someone says by "milking the whales" then they ask "how do we milk the whales more" then someone says "obviously by giving them a shiny new toy that will make all their previous purchases near obsolete", which leads the powers that be to tell the developers to implement this.

Okay, maybe that's not a word for word conversation, but don't be surprised if it's very close.

You do realize you're saying this to someone who a) actually talks directly to the devs about the design of the game and b) convinced them to make a very expensive thing free.

Demonzfyre

I think it’s the general disappointment which consists of:

1. Not really an innovative progression of the game
2. It’s like starting all over anew collecting champs. Imagine you pull a 7* drax or groot.

For myself I can say that I am not really amused as well. My whole alliance is more annoyed than exited but yeah. The hope is now on ascension
Not innovative? They've added 5 and 6*'s..... What would you have expected from a game that started with 1-4* champions? We've known from the begging it wouldn't be like Marvel Future Fight. You're basically saying 5 and 6*'s weren't innovative either.
Exactly. 5 or 6 stars were pointless. If they thought we needed more powerful characters, all they had to do was giving you the chance to improve your 4* to 5*, 5* to 6* or, even more simply, add LVLs to the current characters (5* R6 = 6* R1 and so on).

This is like starting the game from zero over and over again, in a greedy attemp to get money from us, nothing else.

You literally just described what Relics and ascension's will be doing.

DNA3000

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the game needs 7*s. I've yet to hear one person who is complaining about 7*s argue that the game would be in a better place if it had stopped progression with 5*s. The same complaints about 7*s were made when 6*s were announced, and it looks to me like we needed 6*s after all. Would we even have a game right now if 5*s were the top? It's precisely because so many people have stacked 6* rosters they are happy with that we need 7*s. The game will stagnate if we have nothing new to chase after. I'm not convinced that relics are a good idea, but we need 7*s.
I’ll challenge this and ask where would 7* be needed in the game at this time? Are we expecting a new game mode where it will benefit greatly from them or a ramped up EoP?

I agree with @BitterSteel's reply so I won't reiterate it. I think the most important reason we need them is to prevent stagnation. If people feel like they've won the game and the only thing to do is go through the motions of EQ, AQ, etc., the game won't be in a good place. I would also add that for everyone saying the problem is that it is too soon, I'd rather have them too soon than too late. Too soon is annoying. Too late is potentially game killing. I suspect that by the time 7*s really start to take over it won't feel like it's too soon anymore. People forget how long it took for 6*s to really replace 5*s after they were announced.
I’m still intrigued that the only way people can imagine to “prevent stagnation” is to add the same champs with an additional star and higher stats (plus some as yet to be determined bonus mechanic).

Dr. Zola

I have the opposite issue. To me, seven comes after six. I do not wonder why the devs don't try to invent a new step on the ladder any more than I wonder why they don't try to invent a new thing to add to the game besides champions. Every month, two more. And they all follow the same design template. Three specials, signature ability. All games balance reliable structure with differentiation within that structure. There is no real benefit to making something else entirely come after six star champs that does everything seven star champions does, but just in a different disguised way.

Wondering why something completely different doesn't happen is just weird to me. It is like wondering why the game keeps using normal words in their in-game descriptions instead of inventing their own language, or why we have monthly content instead of inventing all new game modes every month, or why Act 8 comes after Act 7, when a completely different kind of content could follow it instead.

It isn't the *only* way. It just is the way it is, and this was decided at the birth of the game. We don't innovate new ways to put gas and brake pedals in cars, because the benefits of standardization vastly outweigh any possible benefit that any such innovation might provide. Maybe, just maybe, there's a better way. Maybe, just maybe, doing it differently will cause some people to enjoy driving more. But it is just not worth it.

If the devs have to invent a new thing to come after six instead of seven, they would be spending all their time inventing new things to come after six. And there would be no real difference in the game: the thing would still do everything seven stars do. They would still reset the chase in the same way. They just wouldn't be able to leverage existing champs.

Or you could get even more radical, and try to completely invent a whole new progression scheme from scratch, every time. However, if that's what they decided to do at the beginning of time, not scale rarity, but invent entire new progression tiers from scratch, I can guarantee the game wouldn't exist any more. The odds of them inventing workable schemes completely incongruent with the current rarity system that just happened to work, every single time, are such that the game probably wouldn't survive long enough to see whatever five stars were supposed to be.

There's a reason almost all such games add, but rarely subtract (and shifting progression away from the natural evolution of rarity steps to something completely different is identical to deleting seven stars and adding something to replace them - or presumably earlier than seven stars). The cost to do so is ridiculously high, and the odds of repeated success are extremely low. No one would bet real money on such an operational strategy.

Or to put it more simply, the reason why you don't see this is anyone with the power to decide to do this would never risk it, and anyone with the creative capability to risk it would never be allowed to do it.

I can think of lots of ways to add to the progression ladder besides just extending the rarity system to seven stars. However, none of them have benefits worth the cost.

WayWorn2525

My first 6* was Drax. Chances are kabam’s rng is going to screw me a 7* Drax. Took me some time to get a decent 6*. Don’t wanna relive that aggravation all over again with 7*. Knowing kabam, my account is gonna get screw harder

endgamelocked

Literally people who have been playing for years quitting over 7 stars. If you can't play a game that changes things up why do you play it?

If they need to change things up for the goodness sake, then change the way players get the champ they want too. Players complains about 7* star is basically for these reasons. doing the whole casino gambling spinnin the crystals not knowing who they will gonna get all over again. for these reasons people might feel stupid to spend anymore money. If only there is such wish crystals when players can choose whoever champs they wish then even 10* will not be a problem.

endgamelocked

Probably because if they're whales they've spent thousands making their roster the best. They likely can't or don't want to spend the same amount for only a chance at replicating that roster at a higher rarity for a higher price.
Like they did when 4* were the top, then 5*, now 6* and 7* after. It’s nothing new.

Personally, I’m ready to go at this champ acquisition game again. Getting all new champs will feel so much better than adding sigs to Drax and Wasp over and over

let me know when you get 7* star groot

Chatterofforums

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the game needs 7*s. I've yet to hear one person who is complaining about 7*s argue that the game would be in a better place if it had stopped progression with 5*s. The same complaints about 7*s were made when 6*s were announced, and it looks to me like we needed 6*s after all. Would we even have a game right now if 5*s were the top? It's precisely because so many people have stacked 6* rosters they are happy with that we need 7*s. The game will stagnate if we have nothing new to chase after. I'm not convinced that relics are a good idea, but we need 7*s.
I’ll challenge this and ask where would 7* be needed in the game at this time? Are we expecting a new game mode where it will benefit greatly from them or a ramped up EoP?

That's not the right question. Or rather, this is not the question the developers ask. The developers ask "at what point is it time to introduce a new rarity?" And the answer to that question requires understanding what rarities are for.

Without getting too deep in the weeds, rarities exist because of champion dilution. The more champions that exist, and more importantly the more champions that players have, the harder it is to make new champs that are meaningful to chase after. When a player has only ten champs, the odds of the next champ they acquire being useful to them in a meaningful way is very high. When they have two hundred champs, the odds are increasingly low. New rarities exist to periodically reset the chase at the top.

So really, the question is not "when will players need 7* champs?" The question actually is "at what point do players stop needing 6* champs?" And the answer to this question is a complex one, because different players need champs for different reasons. At the very top, players are chasing new champs for things like prestige, or marginal utility for war or battlegrounds. The people who have everything don't need something in particular, they need something different. Anything that will give them a marginal advantage over their peers.

The players just below them don't need 7* champs. In fact, they'd be happy if they were not introduced, because they are just getting comfortable with their 6* rosters. That's the problem. They are getting comfortable, and approaching the point where they don't need anything. The game needs players to need things, so that they either become more engaged with the game to grind for them, or spend money on them, or both. The game treats them like people on an exercise plan that is getting just easy enough that they no longer break a sweat. Time to ratchet up.

The players below *them* still need everything. They need stronger champs. They need more champs. But they are also completely out of the race at the top. They struggle for everything, and aren't generally competitive at the top of the game. These players need things, but if the game remained static would likely never get them. They would always be beaten out by the players above them, and they would always find content just a little too difficult for them. These people would probably eventually quit the game because they would get permanently stalled. But these players get a life line. All the stuff that is hard for them to get today, and would be hard for them to get forever, gets easier to get over time, because eventually the players at the top move on to the next thing. In doing so, they make room for these players to move up. What was originally hard, because it had to be hard, because otherwise the players at the top would get too bored, can now get easier because those people are no longer the target.

We tend to think about progression ladders like ladders. Players climb them. But that's actually not entirely accurate, because in progressional games the players climb up, but the ladder also drops down. At any one moment in time there are players who have a certain roster strength and a certain skill level, and that combination will get them only so far, and no farther. Over time, their roster will grow and their skills will grow, but even this is different for all players. For some players, their growth rate is sufficient to make meaningful progress in the game. For others it isn't. If the game itself didn't keep ratcheting upward, and making room for easier progress below, the game would have one fixed progression path. Everyone above the requirements moves on, everyone below gets stuck and quits. But with upward progressional expansion, fast players reach the top, slower players keep pace behind them, and the slowest players can still eventually be pulled forward with the game.

This is the fundamental role of the rarity system. It is about the global state of the game as a whole, not about what any one particular player wants or needs. Probably the biggest misconception about rarities is that they are supposed to be added when enough players need them to complete content. Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. It would be more correct to say they get added when players stop needing things, not when they start needing things. And then there's a trickle down effect that impacts everyone else differently, in a way difficult to replicate with something other than the rarity system.
I personally disagree with your question on what the developers ask. Especially with recent clear emphasis on monetization of everything possible.

I personally believe the powers that be ask something like "how can we make more profit" then someone says by "milking the whales" then they ask "how do we milk the whales more" then someone says "obviously by giving them a shiny new toy that will make all their previous purchases near obsolete", which leads the powers that be to tell the developers to implement this.

Okay, maybe that's not a word for word conversation, but don't be surprised if it's very close.
You do realize you're saying this to someone who a) actually talks directly to the devs about the design of the game and b) convinced them to make a very expensive thing free.

No offense but I think your giving yourself way too much credit. If you really think a volunteer forums helper is in on the real conversations and/or has any real influence when it comes to the bottom line, your likely very wrong.

That's like an unpaid intern at a major company bragging about how they are changing things for the better and getting so much experience when in fact they spend most of their time using the copy machine and getting coffee for the paid employees.

Demonzfyre

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the game needs 7*s. I've yet to hear one person who is complaining about 7*s argue that the game would be in a better place if it had stopped progression with 5*s. The same complaints about 7*s were made when 6*s were announced, and it looks to me like we needed 6*s after all. Would we even have a game right now if 5*s were the top? It's precisely because so many people have stacked 6* rosters they are happy with that we need 7*s. The game will stagnate if we have nothing new to chase after. I'm not convinced that relics are a good idea, but we need 7*s.
I’ll challenge this and ask where would 7* be needed in the game at this time? Are we expecting a new game mode where it will benefit greatly from them or a ramped up EoP?

That's not the right question. Or rather, this is not the question the developers ask. The developers ask "at what point is it time to introduce a new rarity?" And the answer to that question requires understanding what rarities are for.

Without getting too deep in the weeds, rarities exist because of champion dilution. The more champions that exist, and more importantly the more champions that players have, the harder it is to make new champs that are meaningful to chase after. When a player has only ten champs, the odds of the next champ they acquire being useful to them in a meaningful way is very high. When they have two hundred champs, the odds are increasingly low. New rarities exist to periodically reset the chase at the top.

So really, the question is not "when will players need 7* champs?" The question actually is "at what point do players stop needing 6* champs?" And the answer to this question is a complex one, because different players need champs for different reasons. At the very top, players are chasing new champs for things like prestige, or marginal utility for war or battlegrounds. The people who have everything don't need something in particular, they need something different. Anything that will give them a marginal advantage over their peers.

The players just below them don't need 7* champs. In fact, they'd be happy if they were not introduced, because they are just getting comfortable with their 6* rosters. That's the problem. They are getting comfortable, and approaching the point where they don't need anything. The game needs players to need things, so that they either become more engaged with the game to grind for them, or spend money on them, or both. The game treats them like people on an exercise plan that is getting just easy enough that they no longer break a sweat. Time to ratchet up.

The players below *them* still need everything. They need stronger champs. They need more champs. But they are also completely out of the race at the top. They struggle for everything, and aren't generally competitive at the top of the game. These players need things, but if the game remained static would likely never get them. They would always be beaten out by the players above them, and they would always find content just a little too difficult for them. These people would probably eventually quit the game because they would get permanently stalled. But these players get a life line. All the stuff that is hard for them to get today, and would be hard for them to get forever, gets easier to get over time, because eventually the players at the top move on to the next thing. In doing so, they make room for these players to move up. What was originally hard, because it had to be hard, because otherwise the players at the top would get too bored, can now get easier because those people are no longer the target.

We tend to think about progression ladders like ladders. Players climb them. But that's actually not entirely accurate, because in progressional games the players climb up, but the ladder also drops down. At any one moment in time there are players who have a certain roster strength and a certain skill level, and that combination will get them only so far, and no farther. Over time, their roster will grow and their skills will grow, but even this is different for all players. For some players, their growth rate is sufficient to make meaningful progress in the game. For others it isn't. If the game itself didn't keep ratcheting upward, and making room for easier progress below, the game would have one fixed progression path. Everyone above the requirements moves on, everyone below gets stuck and quits. But with upward progressional expansion, fast players reach the top, slower players keep pace behind them, and the slowest players can still eventually be pulled forward with the game.

This is the fundamental role of the rarity system. It is about the global state of the game as a whole, not about what any one particular player wants or needs. Probably the biggest misconception about rarities is that they are supposed to be added when enough players need them to complete content. Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. It would be more correct to say they get added when players stop needing things, not when they start needing things. And then there's a trickle down effect that impacts everyone else differently, in a way difficult to replicate with something other than the rarity system.
I personally disagree with your question on what the developers ask. Especially with recent clear emphasis on monetization of everything possible.

I personally believe the powers that be ask something like "how can we make more profit" then someone says by "milking the whales" then they ask "how do we milk the whales more" then someone says "obviously by giving them a shiny new toy that will make all their previous purchases near obsolete", which leads the powers that be to tell the developers to implement this.

Okay, maybe that's not a word for word conversation, but don't be surprised if it's very close.
You do realize you're saying this to someone who a) actually talks directly to the devs about the design of the game and b) convinced them to make a very expensive thing free.
No offense but I think your giving yourself way too much credit. If you really think a volunteer forums helper is in on the real conversations and/or has any rela influence when it comes to the bottom line, your likely very wrong.

That's like an free intern at a major company bragging about how they are changing things for the better when in fact they spend most of their time using the copy machine and getting coffee for the paid employees.

So no way to counter his argument so you resort to insults?

Chatterofforums

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the game needs 7*s. I've yet to hear one person who is complaining about 7*s argue that the game would be in a better place if it had stopped progression with 5*s. The same complaints about 7*s were made when 6*s were announced, and it looks to me like we needed 6*s after all. Would we even have a game right now if 5*s were the top? It's precisely because so many people have stacked 6* rosters they are happy with that we need 7*s. The game will stagnate if we have nothing new to chase after. I'm not convinced that relics are a good idea, but we need 7*s.
I’ll challenge this and ask where would 7* be needed in the game at this time? Are we expecting a new game mode where it will benefit greatly from them or a ramped up EoP?

That's not the right question. Or rather, this is not the question the developers ask. The developers ask "at what point is it time to introduce a new rarity?" And the answer to that question requires understanding what rarities are for.

Without getting too deep in the weeds, rarities exist because of champion dilution. The more champions that exist, and more importantly the more champions that players have, the harder it is to make new champs that are meaningful to chase after. When a player has only ten champs, the odds of the next champ they acquire being useful to them in a meaningful way is very high. When they have two hundred champs, the odds are increasingly low. New rarities exist to periodically reset the chase at the top.

So really, the question is not "when will players need 7* champs?" The question actually is "at what point do players stop needing 6* champs?" And the answer to this question is a complex one, because different players need champs for different reasons. At the very top, players are chasing new champs for things like prestige, or marginal utility for war or battlegrounds. The people who have everything don't need something in particular, they need something different. Anything that will give them a marginal advantage over their peers.

The players just below them don't need 7* champs. In fact, they'd be happy if they were not introduced, because they are just getting comfortable with their 6* rosters. That's the problem. They are getting comfortable, and approaching the point where they don't need anything. The game needs players to need things, so that they either become more engaged with the game to grind for them, or spend money on them, or both. The game treats them like people on an exercise plan that is getting just easy enough that they no longer break a sweat. Time to ratchet up.

The players below *them* still need everything. They need stronger champs. They need more champs. But they are also completely out of the race at the top. They struggle for everything, and aren't generally competitive at the top of the game. These players need things, but if the game remained static would likely never get them. They would always be beaten out by the players above them, and they would always find content just a little too difficult for them. These people would probably eventually quit the game because they would get permanently stalled. But these players get a life line. All the stuff that is hard for them to get today, and would be hard for them to get forever, gets easier to get over time, because eventually the players at the top move on to the next thing. In doing so, they make room for these players to move up. What was originally hard, because it had to be hard, because otherwise the players at the top would get too bored, can now get easier because those people are no longer the target.

We tend to think about progression ladders like ladders. Players climb them. But that's actually not entirely accurate, because in progressional games the players climb up, but the ladder also drops down. At any one moment in time there are players who have a certain roster strength and a certain skill level, and that combination will get them only so far, and no farther. Over time, their roster will grow and their skills will grow, but even this is different for all players. For some players, their growth rate is sufficient to make meaningful progress in the game. For others it isn't. If the game itself didn't keep ratcheting upward, and making room for easier progress below, the game would have one fixed progression path. Everyone above the requirements moves on, everyone below gets stuck and quits. But with upward progressional expansion, fast players reach the top, slower players keep pace behind them, and the slowest players can still eventually be pulled forward with the game.

This is the fundamental role of the rarity system. It is about the global state of the game as a whole, not about what any one particular player wants or needs. Probably the biggest misconception about rarities is that they are supposed to be added when enough players need them to complete content. Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. It would be more correct to say they get added when players stop needing things, not when they start needing things. And then there's a trickle down effect that impacts everyone else differently, in a way difficult to replicate with something other than the rarity system.
I personally disagree with your question on what the developers ask. Especially with recent clear emphasis on monetization of everything possible.

I personally believe the powers that be ask something like "how can we make more profit" then someone says by "milking the whales" then they ask "how do we milk the whales more" then someone says "obviously by giving them a shiny new toy that will make all their previous purchases near obsolete", which leads the powers that be to tell the developers to implement this.

Okay, maybe that's not a word for word conversation, but don't be surprised if it's very close.
You do realize you're saying this to someone who a) actually talks directly to the devs about the design of the game and b) convinced them to make a very expensive thing free.
No offense but I think your giving yourself way too much credit. If you really think a volunteer forums helper is in on the real conversations and/or has any rela influence when it comes to the bottom line, your likely very wrong.

That's like an free intern at a major company bragging about how they are changing things for the better when in fact they spend most of their time using the copy machine and getting coffee for the paid employees.
DNA has many times spoken about how he has conversations with the Devs, provided insight directly from them that has subsequently been proved true, and otherwise shown that he does have conversations with the devs about what they do and why they do it.

This would be a very easy thing for Kabam to prove wrong, and I’m sure if someone was claiming they spoke to the devs when they didn’t, one of the moderators would drop a message saying it’s untrue. Kabam do not allow people to masquerade as Kabam staff, it can get you banned on the forum. If DNA was lying, we’d know about it. It’s a pretty hefty negative if someone is running around claiming they’ve spoken to the developers and giving false information.

I don’t think DNA is claiming to have influence over more than the free revives, “make a very expensive thing free” is clearly referring to the expensive revives.

That's perfectly fine and I'm not denying that. But his earlier response was practically implying that he knows everything that is going on within the company and nothing gets past him. To think that he's involved in the powers that be conversations (no, not the developers) isn't likely.

And although posts he make might get some attentions, kabam has said many times they listen to the data. If his argument goes with he data they have them that's why the change is made.

Why do you think the BG changes recently happened, because people were complaining? Maybe a very small part is that, but they looked at the data they saw people aren't playing it as much as they expected and they saw people werent spending as much on it as they wanted. The data drives the decisions, that's not just kabam, that's any profitable company.

Demonzfyre

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the game needs 7*s. I've yet to hear one person who is complaining about 7*s argue that the game would be in a better place if it had stopped progression with 5*s. The same complaints about 7*s were made when 6*s were announced, and it looks to me like we needed 6*s after all. Would we even have a game right now if 5*s were the top? It's precisely because so many people have stacked 6* rosters they are happy with that we need 7*s. The game will stagnate if we have nothing new to chase after. I'm not convinced that relics are a good idea, but we need 7*s.
I’ll challenge this and ask where would 7* be needed in the game at this time? Are we expecting a new game mode where it will benefit greatly from them or a ramped up EoP?

That's not the right question. Or rather, this is not the question the developers ask. The developers ask "at what point is it time to introduce a new rarity?" And the answer to that question requires understanding what rarities are for.

Without getting too deep in the weeds, rarities exist because of champion dilution. The more champions that exist, and more importantly the more champions that players have, the harder it is to make new champs that are meaningful to chase after. When a player has only ten champs, the odds of the next champ they acquire being useful to them in a meaningful way is very high. When they have two hundred champs, the odds are increasingly low. New rarities exist to periodically reset the chase at the top.

So really, the question is not "when will players need 7* champs?" The question actually is "at what point do players stop needing 6* champs?" And the answer to this question is a complex one, because different players need champs for different reasons. At the very top, players are chasing new champs for things like prestige, or marginal utility for war or battlegrounds. The people who have everything don't need something in particular, they need something different. Anything that will give them a marginal advantage over their peers.

The players just below them don't need 7* champs. In fact, they'd be happy if they were not introduced, because they are just getting comfortable with their 6* rosters. That's the problem. They are getting comfortable, and approaching the point where they don't need anything. The game needs players to need things, so that they either become more engaged with the game to grind for them, or spend money on them, or both. The game treats them like people on an exercise plan that is getting just easy enough that they no longer break a sweat. Time to ratchet up.

The players below *them* still need everything. They need stronger champs. They need more champs. But they are also completely out of the race at the top. They struggle for everything, and aren't generally competitive at the top of the game. These players need things, but if the game remained static would likely never get them. They would always be beaten out by the players above them, and they would always find content just a little too difficult for them. These people would probably eventually quit the game because they would get permanently stalled. But these players get a life line. All the stuff that is hard for them to get today, and would be hard for them to get forever, gets easier to get over time, because eventually the players at the top move on to the next thing. In doing so, they make room for these players to move up. What was originally hard, because it had to be hard, because otherwise the players at the top would get too bored, can now get easier because those people are no longer the target.

We tend to think about progression ladders like ladders. Players climb them. But that's actually not entirely accurate, because in progressional games the players climb up, but the ladder also drops down. At any one moment in time there are players who have a certain roster strength and a certain skill level, and that combination will get them only so far, and no farther. Over time, their roster will grow and their skills will grow, but even this is different for all players. For some players, their growth rate is sufficient to make meaningful progress in the game. For others it isn't. If the game itself didn't keep ratcheting upward, and making room for easier progress below, the game would have one fixed progression path. Everyone above the requirements moves on, everyone below gets stuck and quits. But with upward progressional expansion, fast players reach the top, slower players keep pace behind them, and the slowest players can still eventually be pulled forward with the game.

This is the fundamental role of the rarity system. It is about the global state of the game as a whole, not about what any one particular player wants or needs. Probably the biggest misconception about rarities is that they are supposed to be added when enough players need them to complete content. Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. It would be more correct to say they get added when players stop needing things, not when they start needing things. And then there's a trickle down effect that impacts everyone else differently, in a way difficult to replicate with something other than the rarity system.
I personally disagree with your question on what the developers ask. Especially with recent clear emphasis on monetization of everything possible.

I personally believe the powers that be ask something like "how can we make more profit" then someone says by "milking the whales" then they ask "how do we milk the whales more" then someone says "obviously by giving them a shiny new toy that will make all their previous purchases near obsolete", which leads the powers that be to tell the developers to implement this.

Okay, maybe that's not a word for word conversation, but don't be surprised if it's very close.
You do realize you're saying this to someone who a) actually talks directly to the devs about the design of the game and b) convinced them to make a very expensive thing free.
No offense but I think your giving yourself way too much credit. If you really think a volunteer forums helper is in on the real conversations and/or has any rela influence when it comes to the bottom line, your likely very wrong.

That's like an free intern at a major company bragging about how they are changing things for the better when in fact they spend most of their time using the copy machine and getting coffee for the paid employees.
DNA has many times spoken about how he has conversations with the Devs, provided insight directly from them that has subsequently been proved true, and otherwise shown that he does have conversations with the devs about what they do and why they do it.

This would be a very easy thing for Kabam to prove wrong, and I’m sure if someone was claiming they spoke to the devs when they didn’t, one of the moderators would drop a message saying it’s untrue. Kabam do not allow people to masquerade as Kabam staff, it can get you banned on the forum. If DNA was lying, we’d know about it. It’s a pretty hefty negative if someone is running around claiming they’ve spoken to the developers and giving false information.

I don’t think DNA is claiming to have influence over more than the free revives, “make a very expensive thing free” is clearly referring to the expensive revives.

That's perfectly fine and I'm not denying that. But his earlier response was practically implying that he knows everything that is going on within the company and nothing gets past him. To think that he's involved in the powers that be conversations (no, not the developers) isn't likely.

And although posts he make might get some attentions, kabam has said many times they listen to the data. If his argument goes with he data they have them that's why the change is made.

Why do you think the BG changes recently happened, because people were complaining? Maybe a very small part is that, but they looked at the data they saw people aren't playing it as much as they expected and they saw people werent spending as much on it as they wanted. The data drives the decisions, that's not just kabam, that's any profitable company.

He didn't say he knew everything that was going on in the company. He said he talks directly to the Devs and was able to convince them to do something they weren't going to do. You're way out of your league right now and we can see you twisting to make your comments work but they aren't.

Data isn't the only thing that drives their decisions. They have focus groups outside of betas as well to gain feedback. I've been part of one with DNA and some others who are in the CCP now (before the CCP existed) and there have been others outside of that. There is also the Summoners Sanctum surveys that are sent out as well, plus the various threads here on the forums.

Not sure if you remember but the forums directly changed the course of AW when, for whatever reason, Kabam decided to get rid of defender diversity. The feedback was so overwhelming because of defensive rankups that they reversed course and kept it. There have been other times as well that the feedback from the forums changed the plans of Kabam like-
Nerfing Act 6 into oblivion.
Increasing rewards in Act 7.
OG Gully buffed like 19 times.
Hood changes

Now, 2 of those examples aren't exactly things to be proud of given that Act 6 content was pretty unique and needed some level of skill to complete and with how easy Act 7 is, rewards bump wasn't really needed that badly but the forums made it happen.

Kabams decisions aren't solely based on data. They do get a lot from these forums whether you'll admit it or not. And if you think the decision to change BG's already is based on playing data and no the amount of negative feedback they've received due to the pay to play aspect of the mode, then you'd be very much on the wrong side of things.

Suros_moon

There are 200+ champions. Unless we hand out 7 stats at a much higher rate, we have to attempt to replicate pilling a diverse set of characters all over again with the largest basic pool we’ve ever seen. Without any sort of selection (save for nexus crystals and 15k units on the 4th) this is already bad enough. Add on top the necessity of awakenings/signature stones and a buff program which usually helps absolutely no one 90% of the time, and we’re teeing up for some of the worst grind ever in terms of roster progression

NastyPhish

The reason I’m not excited is because of how champ acquiring works. You get a champ. Are they good to go? Not necessarily. For example. Namor isn’t Namor without being awakened and sig 200. Same for Aegon. Angela needs at least the first dupe. Some say sig 200. But I say at least one dupe. So considering every champ in the game.

A very small amount of the pool is good to go when you get them.

So I don’t like 7* for the fact that “most” of the pool has some qualifier it relies on. (Awakened, Sig, Rank, Synergy etc.) So realistically 7* will never be something worth building, except in the most rare cases.

Mr.0-8-4

Literally people who have been playing for years quitting over 7 stars. If you can't play a game that changes things up why do you play it?

Have you ever upgraded your 6-star to rank 5?

Suros_moon

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the game needs 7*s. I've yet to hear one person who is complaining about 7*s argue that the game would be in a better place if it had stopped progression with 5*s. The same complaints about 7*s were made when 6*s were announced, and it looks to me like we needed 6*s after all. Would we even have a game right now if 5*s were the top? It's precisely because so many people have stacked 6* rosters they are happy with that we need 7*s. The game will stagnate if we have nothing new to chase after. I'm not convinced that relics are a good idea, but we need 7*s.
I’ll challenge this and ask where would 7* be needed in the game at this time? Are we expecting a new game mode where it will benefit greatly from them or a ramped up EoP?

That's not the right question. Or rather, this is not the question the developers ask. The developers ask "at what point is it time to introduce a new rarity?" And the answer to that question requires understanding what rarities are for.

Without getting too deep in the weeds, rarities exist because of champion dilution. The more champions that exist, and more importantly the more champions that players have, the harder it is to make new champs that are meaningful to chase after. When a player has only ten champs, the odds of the next champ they acquire being useful to them in a meaningful way is very high. When they have two hundred champs, the odds are increasingly low. New rarities exist to periodically reset the chase at the top.

So really, the question is not "when will players need 7* champs?" The question actually is "at what point do players stop needing 6* champs?" And the answer to this question is a complex one, because different players need champs for different reasons. At the very top, players are chasing new champs for things like prestige, or marginal utility for war or battlegrounds. The people who have everything don't need something in particular, they need something different. Anything that will give them a marginal advantage over their peers.

The players just below them don't need 7* champs. In fact, they'd be happy if they were not introduced, because they are just getting comfortable with their 6* rosters. That's the problem. They are getting comfortable, and approaching the point where they don't need anything. The game needs players to need things, so that they either become more engaged with the game to grind for them, or spend money on them, or both. The game treats them like people on an exercise plan that is getting just easy enough that they no longer break a sweat. Time to ratchet up.

The players below *them* still need everything. They need stronger champs. They need more champs. But they are also completely out of the race at the top. They struggle for everything, and aren't generally competitive at the top of the game. These players need things, but if the game remained static would likely never get them. They would always be beaten out by the players above them, and they would always find content just a little too difficult for them. These people would probably eventually quit the game because they would get permanently stalled. But these players get a life line. All the stuff that is hard for them to get today, and would be hard for them to get forever, gets easier to get over time, because eventually the players at the top move on to the next thing. In doing so, they make room for these players to move up. What was originally hard, because it had to be hard, because otherwise the players at the top would get too bored, can now get easier because those people are no longer the target.

We tend to think about progression ladders like ladders. Players climb them. But that's actually not entirely accurate, because in progressional games the players climb up, but the ladder also drops down. At any one moment in time there are players who have a certain roster strength and a certain skill level, and that combination will get them only so far, and no farther. Over time, their roster will grow and their skills will grow, but even this is different for all players. For some players, their growth rate is sufficient to make meaningful progress in the game. For others it isn't. If the game itself didn't keep ratcheting upward, and making room for easier progress below, the game would have one fixed progression path. Everyone above the requirements moves on, everyone below gets stuck and quits. But with upward progressional expansion, fast players reach the top, slower players keep pace behind them, and the slowest players can still eventually be pulled forward with the game.

This is the fundamental role of the rarity system. It is about the global state of the game as a whole, not about what any one particular player wants or needs. Probably the biggest misconception about rarities is that they are supposed to be added when enough players need them to complete content. Actually, almost the exact opposite is true. It would be more correct to say they get added when players stop needing things, not when they start needing things. And then there's a trickle down effect that impacts everyone else differently, in a way difficult to replicate with something other than the rarity system.
I personally disagree with your question on what the developers ask. Especially with recent clear emphasis on monetization of everything possible.

I personally believe the powers that be ask something like "how can we make more profit" then someone says by "milking the whales" then they ask "how do we milk the whales more" then someone says "obviously by giving them a shiny new toy that will make all their previous purchases near obsolete", which leads the powers that be to tell the developers to implement this.

Okay, maybe that's not a word for word conversation, but don't be surprised if it's very close.
You do realize you're saying this to someone who a) actually talks directly to the devs about the design of the game and b) convinced them to make a very expensive thing free.

Correct me if Im wrong but the only reason they changed the “expensive thing” was because that wasnt where the majority if revenue from the game mode came from. I.e most high end war players spend units healing not reviving and most money comes from high end players. Your counter says nothing about their motivations- if anything they're just trying to retain the lower players with hopes of monetizing them later.

Id agree more with the monetization framework given how blatantly backwards the release of battlegrounds was as compared to beta coupled with three massive easily monetize-able progression systems being announced (“coincidentally”) just as the single largest spending event of the year was axed. In fact the existence of the gifting event at all spoke volumes about the game’s priorities. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if gifting was canceled so that kabam could justify not handing out 7 star shards out in meaningful quantities for the long term monetization of them later through offers throughout the year