**WINTER OF WOE - BONUS OBJECTIVE POINT**
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.
As previously announced, the team will be distributing an additional point toward milestones to anyone who completed the Absorbing Man fight in the first step of the Winter of Woe.
This point will be distributed at a later time as it requires the team to pull and analyze data.
The timeline has not been set, but work has started.
There is currently an issue where some Alliances are are unable to find a match in Alliance Wars, or are receiving Byes without getting the benefits of the Win. We will be adjusting the Season Points of the Alliances that are affected within the coming weeks, and will be working to compensate them for their missed Per War rewards as well.
Additionally, we are working to address an issue where new Members of an Alliance are unable to place Defenders for the next War after joining. We are working to address this, but it will require a future update.
Additionally, we are working to address an issue where new Members of an Alliance are unable to place Defenders for the next War after joining. We are working to address this, but it will require a future update.
What did you do with your 7* shards?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
WHAT
Personally, I think g99 is great for max double suicide. Her regen is exceptional.
I got Sauron and awakened him.
He's also great for defense for max double suicide.
But if you aren’t in the prestige race, and don’t care about the opening event, I don’t see why you can’t just hold your crystals till the basic has a champ you want?
That said, I don’t think the 7* basic crystal is ever going to be better. There is 1 champ in there that is generally considered to be a bit of a dog. The rest are all worth having at, essentially, R5 rank 1 power. Hulk is good, he makes my Herc even better. Venom is hood, he makes my Scorpion even better. Shuri and Idoom, Storm and Apoc, Terrax and Galen. They all become better synergy companions, as they can actually do work, and you invest nothing but shards and iso. You don’t have to rank them. But will the group stay uniformly good (if not great)? History would say no. Trash champs will infiltrate along with great ones, and it becomes RNG again. You’ll be opening them just to get titan shards, hoping for better RNG in there.
My opinion.
Not certain, just a hunch.
I also really like the pool, only a few real misses for me.
Still waiting to get 10k shards to get my first 7*!! 🤣
I've got almost 9k shards, so almost there!
Do you also wait for him to tell you what to do in life? Does he give you permission to use the bathroom?
You're sitting here judging everyone's choices on who they like and want to use and you have no opinion of your own because you can't think for yourself. Everything you've ever said on these forums doesn't come from your own experience. It comes from opinions of people like KT1. You got dragged, hard, for your opinion on Mantis and you still haven't learned. Maybe try using other champs besides your crutch Hercules. Try at actually becoming good at the game instead of wasting time making pointless polls.
I had Gambit and Spider-Gwen at R3 way before 7-stars were released.
My first 7-star pull was Gwen, second was Bishop; and frankly I’m delighted.
The way I see it, we have a chance to rank up and learn new champions and create our own meta instead of going mainstream.
There were a series of psychological experiments conducted in the 1970s similar to what you're describing above. They were not intended to show any correlation between intelligence and the ability to withhold gratification. They were instead structured to see what sort of things would *help* children delay gratification to get the rewards they wanted. Its was follow up studies that seemed to show, long after the fact, that the children who were able to delay gratification for longer periods of time were more likely to have academic and economic success in their later life.
However, those studies were conducted with relatively few children and did not control for a variety of socioeconomic factors that were not seen as relevant to the intent of the study, which was not to show who could hold out holder and who couldn't. It was to see what would help people hold out longer overall.
This is important, because those studies were challenged in the 1990s and the 2000s. It occurred to later scientists that the apocryphal explanation for the results - smarter people are also more disciplined people - was not the only possible explanation. There was another, the so-called trust issue. If you tell a child you can have one now or two later, why should they trust that you are telling them the truth? It is a perfectly reasonable logical thought process to decide the bird in the hand was worth more than the possibility of two later.
If you come from someone from a very secure economic background, as a child you might simply assume anything an adult tells you is the truth. In that case, you are deciding between one cookie and two. But if you come from a family where parental employment is sketchy, where food security is problematic, where nothing is assured, then when offered the choice between one cookie now and maybe two later, you might decide the one cookie now is the better choice, because the *odds* of getting two cookies later is simply too low. And later attempts to replicate these studies with larger numbers of children across a wide cross section of the socioeconomic range have suggested that self-discipline is not always strongly correlated with intelligence or later success. It is often more strongly correlated with backgrounds conducive to trust experimenters.
The lesson here is that before you use information, you should be certain you fully understand the nature of the information you're incorporating into your decisions. KT1 himself is very careful to offer that disclaimer when it comes to his tier list. Its a thing he does for fun, and something he thinks can be helpful as a reference to others, but even he is very careful to state that making decisions, like holding on to 7* shards indefinitely, purely on the basis of his tier list would be a bad idea. And keep in mind he's opening crystals based on the same judgment he is using to construct the tier list. KT1 believes his tier list is not a good reason to not open crystals.
Oh, and one more thing: One of the benefits of opening 7* crystals is that none of those champs needs to be "ranked up." Every single one of those champions is in effect the rough equivalent of a 6* rank 4 straight out of the box, for the price of some ISO and gold. No catalysts required. Unless you have a ton of R4s, most players could use a few more champs of that caliber, and opening a 7* crystal has a decent chance of granting a useful one that requires no catalysts to be immediately useful without having to expend any expensive catalysts to rank them up.
https://youtu.be/PylOxUU9FQE
Be honest.
And you skirt the question I asked or are you waiting on KT1 to tell you all about War Machine?
Nimrod, Warlock, Penni.. or even Hulkbuster.
What rank is your 6* War machine?