Should MCOC stop with 5 energy per move quests?

Comments

• Kabam Miike Moderator Moderator › Posts: 8,269

  March 18

  Didn't realize so many of you wanted us to up the Energy cost to 10 per step...

  64
• Toproller89 Member Posts: 911 ★★★

  March 18

  Yes

  Kabam Miike said:

  Didn't realize so many of you wanted us to up the Energy cost to 10 per step...

  15 actually, we have too many energy refills about to go to waste.

  3
• DNA3000 Member, Guardian Guardian › Posts: 19,670 Guardian

  March 18

  Toproller89 said:

  I'm seeing a trend in the 5 energy per move content, with WoW and now this alliance war showcase, and I'm not liking it one bit.

  You do realize that energy is balanced per map, not per step right? If you changed energy from 5 per step to 3 per step, there would just be more steps.
  
  What you're really saying, I assume, is that you want everything to cost less energy overall. Which begs the question, why have content cost energy at all? I think if someone wants to advocate for things to cost less energy, they should either be honest and state that they think things should cost no energy and are pushing for energy costs to be as low as they can get away with, or explain why X energy is too much, but Y energy is just right.
  

  6
• Crcrcrc Member Posts: 7,964 ★★★★★

  March 18

  new forum rule no posting if you have more disagrees than agrees

  15
• Unknown

  March 18

  This content has been removed.
• Chovner Member Posts: 1,229 ★★★★★

  March 18

  Yes

  Kabam been hungry for our energy refills lately:
  
  
  

  15
• Unknown

  March 18

  This content has been removed.
• DNA3000 Member, Guardian Guardian › Posts: 19,670 Guardian

  March 18

  Crcrcrc said:

  new forum rule no posting if you have more disagrees than agrees

  Tempting, but I consider disagree flags to be the first refuge of the illiterate, which makes it difficult to reward them.

  8
• Suros_moon Member Posts: 476 ★★★

  March 18

  Crcrcrc said:

  new forum rule no posting if you have more disagrees than agrees

  
  That loads the assumption that I trust the reasoning of most forum goers when it comes to things they agree with. I promise that isn’t the case

  5
• BringPopcorn Member Posts: 5,143 ★★★★★

  March 19

  1 full energy fill per tile, goes great with the 2 hour timer

  1
• DNA3000 Member, Guardian Guardian › Posts: 19,670 Guardian

  March 19

  Suros_moon said:

  Crcrcrc said:

  new forum rule no posting if you have more disagrees than agrees

  That loads the assumption that I trust the reasoning of most forum goers when it comes to things they agree with. I promise that isn’t the case

  I would swear this post came from a GroundedWisdom alt.

  5
• Maverick75 Member Posts: 744 ★★★

  March 19

  Yes

  It’s like energy cost in Winter of Woe: why bother players with that?

  4
• ahmynuts Member Posts: 7,573 ★★★★★

  March 19

  DNA3000 said:

  Suros_moon said:

  Crcrcrc said:

  new forum rule no posting if you have more disagrees than agrees

  That loads the assumption that I trust the reasoning of most forum goers when it comes to things they agree with. I promise that isn’t the case

  I would swear this post came from a GroundedWisdom alt.

  If you squint really hard Suros_moon looks like GroundedWisdom

  9
• Suros_moon Member Posts: 476 ★★★

  March 19

  DNA3000 said:

  Suros_moon said:

  Crcrcrc said:

  new forum rule no posting if you have more disagrees than agrees

  That loads the assumption that I trust the reasoning of most forum goers when it comes to things they agree with. I promise that isn’t the case

  I would swear this post came from a GroundedWisdom alt.

  
  Well, the Bible doesn’t specifically say that Im not GW. On the other hand Im an atheist, so I suppose we’ll never know

  2
• Nightheart Member Posts: 2,117 ★★★★

  March 19

  No

  How many discussions are you going to post in 1 day? I see you more than Drax

  0
• ahmynuts Member Posts: 7,573 ★★★★★

  March 19

  Suros_moon said:

  DNA3000 said:

  Suros_moon said:

  Crcrcrc said:

  new forum rule no posting if you have more disagrees than agrees

  That loads the assumption that I trust the reasoning of most forum goers when it comes to things they agree with. I promise that isn’t the case

  I would swear this post came from a GroundedWisdom alt.

  
  Well, the Bible doesn’t specifically say that Im not GW. On the other hand Im an atheist, so I suppose we’ll never know

  Why did this make me laugh so hard bro lmaooo

  2
• Toproller89 Member Posts: 911 ★★★

  March 19 edited March 19

  Yes

  DNA3000 said:

  Toproller89 said:

  I'm seeing a trend in the 5 energy per move content, with WoW and now this alliance war showcase, and I'm not liking it one bit.

  You do realize that energy is balanced per map, not per step right? If you changed energy from 5 per step to 3 per step, there would just be more steps.
  
  What you're really saying, I assume, is that you want everything to cost less energy overall. Which begs the question, why have content cost energy at all? I think if someone wants to advocate for things to cost less energy, they should either be honest and state that they think things should cost no energy and are pushing for energy costs to be as low as they can get away with, or explain why X energy is too much, but Y energy is just right.
  

  What I would like, is for when hard content that will inevitably come with a revive cost and a learning curve to complete, is that energy cost be set at a sensible level so when summoners reset a quest a few times to get the hang of fights, they are not chewing through energy at a ridiculous rate.
  
  Right now there are a lot of quests running simultaneously that require energy, event quests, side quests, tomorrow a new WoW quest with 5 per tile energy as well.
  
  That's a lot of quests running at once, and I feel that the cost on these end game difficulty quests is a bit steep.
  
  You can run your little calculations and shill for Kabam all you want, I'm for the summoners.
  
  

  6
• DNA3000 Member, Guardian Guardian › Posts: 19,670 Guardian

  March 19

  ahmynuts said:

  DNA3000 said:

  Suros_moon said:

  Crcrcrc said:

  new forum rule no posting if you have more disagrees than agrees

  That loads the assumption that I trust the reasoning of most forum goers when it comes to things they agree with. I promise that isn’t the case

  I would swear this post came from a GroundedWisdom alt.

  If you squint really hard Suros_moon looks like GroundedWisdom

  Not usually, but there are very few people I can think of that would say "load the assumption."

  0
• DNA3000 Member, Guardian Guardian › Posts: 19,670 Guardian

  March 19

  Toproller89 said:

  DNA3000 said:

  Toproller89 said:

  I'm seeing a trend in the 5 energy per move content, with WoW and now this alliance war showcase, and I'm not liking it one bit.

  You do realize that energy is balanced per map, not per step right? If you changed energy from 5 per step to 3 per step, there would just be more steps.
  
  What you're really saying, I assume, is that you want everything to cost less energy overall. Which begs the question, why have content cost energy at all? I think if someone wants to advocate for things to cost less energy, they should either be honest and state that they think things should cost no energy and are pushing for energy costs to be as low as they can get away with, or explain why X energy is too much, but Y energy is just right.
  

  What I would like, is for when hard content that will inevitably come with a revive cost and a learning curve to complete, is that energy cost be set at a sensible level so when summoners reset a quest a few times to get the hang of fights, they are not chewing through energy at a ridiculous rate.
  
  Right now there are a lot of quests running simultaneously that require energy, event quests, side quests, tomorrow a new WoW quest with 5 per tile energy as well.
  
  That's a lot of quests running at once, and I feel that the cost on these end game difficulty quests is a bit steep.
  
  You can run your little calculations and shill for Kabam all you want, I'm for the summoners.
  

  And what have you done for the summoners recently. Or at all?
  
  I know I've often stated that I don't place much stock in flags when it comes to credibility, but they do have at least some bearing when it comes to support.
  
  
  
  It doesn't seem like the summoners themselves agree with you that you're for them. But what do they know.

  5
• Toproller89 Member Posts: 911 ★★★

  March 19

  Yes

  I'm guessing a lot of "illiterate" people have been engaging with my posts.

  2
• smdam38 Member Posts: 1,443 ★★★

  March 19

  It makes sense that it’s balanced per map.
  I think it only hurts the burst or toilet bowl players.
  
  The folks that don’t play daily, and can jump in once in a while to try to knock out a quest.
  It’s impossible to please everyone.
  
  But I have to say it would be awesome if they kept up this shortened timer for energy.

  1
• Toproller89 Member Posts: 911 ★★★

  March 19 edited March 19

  Yes

  Another reason could be, is that i have put some ideas out there with good intent, but the ideas themselves were just plain bad for one reason or another.

  3
• Omega_Runner Member Posts: 143 ★★

  March 19

  Here math is plain and simple, put lots of energy related content by saying energy refill is easily available in many content reward and then silently remove then and gradually everybody starts spending units on energy refill as well.
  
  Just normal schemes run by kabam.
  Everything start sucking up units now, AW / Incursion / Almost all Everest content / Battleground (as there are op defenders and you can only get them by spending units) / AI behaviour/ parry issue and what not. Even all monthly quest and side quest have some nodes which more often cause even with r5 and R2 to need revives.

  3
• DNA3000 Member, Guardian Guardian › Posts: 19,670 Guardian

  March 19

  Toproller89 said:

  Another reason could be, is that i have put some ideas out there with good intent, but the ideas themselves were just plain bad for one reason or another.

  Or perhaps, and I'm just spitballing here, you tend to jump into discussions without full knowledge of the historical context, which makes you vulnerable to jumping to conclusions and saying things that other people find relatively easy to disprove.
  
  You know, like calling a player a shill after reading a couple of their posts, without any awareness at all of their history making critical commentary about game flaws or advocating for positive changes to the game that actually get implemented and probably benefit you directly.

  7
• Omega_Runner Member Posts: 143 ★★

  March 19

  I just don't understand earlier with r4 was enough to clear side quest easily and now with r5 I have to use revives and there is no reward update for monthly quest, just insane amount of unstoppable and unblockable also most of time dex won't work.
  So, moye[$] moye[$]

  0
• Darkness275 Member Posts: 850 ★★★★

  March 19

  Yes

  I don't like it.
  
  I think 5 energy is a bit much, but I don't believe they nerfed the ability to farm energy though, only revives. I could be wrong. If I'm not wrong though and people are really complaining this much - energy is truly a valuable resource. Why would you farm for revives but not for energy refills?
  
  

  0
• Ourobøros Member Posts: 1,692 ★★★★

  March 19 edited March 19

  Yes

  What I don't get is, Showcase is supposed to resemble AW, but then why it costs five energy per node while in AW it's only one? What's the thought behind it?

  3
• BringPopcorn Member Posts: 5,143 ★★★★★

  March 19

  I want war boosts for this 😤

  0
• Pikolu Member, Guardian Guardian › Posts: 7,754 Guardian

  March 19

  Opandemonio said:

  What I don't get is, Showcase is supposed to resemble AW, but then why it costs five energy per node while in AW it's only one? What's the thought behind it?

  You want to use your war energy on this quest instead and have to wait a long time to finish it or spend 60 units for an additional 6 energy?

  3
• Herbal_Taxman Member Posts: 667 ★★★

  March 19

  That was your first mistake.

  0