6* are too powerful

Even that I pulled one of the worst champions ( Gamora ) the attack, Health and regeneration ( Adrenaline ) quickly overshadows most 5* choices. This means that all the time spent building a strong 5* roster will have a short term benefit only once the 6* are more available.

Just wanted to share the thoughts.

Comments

DaMunk

4* make 3* look weak. 5* make 4* look weak. I don't know why you expected something different. I sort of think you are trying (badly) to brag. Really only need to post it once too.

heruheru511

People will always have something to moan about won't they?

dkatryl

One of the issues, other than them having a mechanic the lesser tiers don't have, which inherently makes them better, is that while a r1 5* only ~= a r3 4*, a r1 6* ~= a r4 5*, according to Kabam.

So the lowest ranked 6* is still a full equivalent rank higher than the highest ranked 4*. Also, to get a similarly ranked 5*, you have to spend several t2a (Among other things), which is a very finite resource, where the 6* will only require iso and gold

A r1 6* should be ~= a r3 5*, or a r5 4*.

chev327fox

It does seem 6*s are exponentially more powerful. A base 4* is half the PI of a fully ranked 3* (roughly)... but a base 6* is like a R3 5* in PI.

Spurgeon14

Let people have fun with 6* and quit whining. Kabam is obviously making harder content. 6* are fine the way they are.

Dexman1349

On the surface, I would have to agree that the jump from 5* to 6* seems a bit extreme in comparison to the stat jumps between lower-star champs.

Just looking at the stats, the progression is as follows:

R1 2* = Maxed 1*
R1 3* = R2 2*
R1 4* = R3 3*
R1 5* = R3 4*

It would only make sense for a R1 6* to start somewhere closer to an R3 5*. They seem to start one tier too high.

Knightarthus

DaMunk wrote: »

4* make 3* look weak. 5* make 4* look weak. I don't know why you expected something different. I sort of think you are trying (badly) to brag. Really only need to post it once too.

Not sure how pulling a trash champion is something to brag about. The 6* Rank one is stronger than R4 5*. 5* Rank 1 is not better than Rank 4 5*.

I did not mean to post more than once and not aware of a way to delete posts.

Knightarthus

Dexman1349 wrote: »

On the surface, I would have to agree that the jump from 5* to 6* seems a bit extreme in comparison to the stat jumps between lower-star champs.

Just looking at the stats, the progression is as follows:

R1 2* = Maxed 1*
R1 3* = R2 2*
R1 4* = R3 3*
R1 5* = R3 4*

It would only make sense for a R1 6* to start somewhere closer to an R3 5*. They seem to start one tier too high.

Exactly. Someone gets it

Alpha07

i don't see any trouble with it.
R1 3* > Maxed 1*.
R1 4* > Maxed 2*.
R1 5* > Maxed 3*.
so for a R1 6* to be stronger than a Maxed 4* is fine.

Lunchbox45

Waaaaaaaah

DNA3000

Dexman1349 wrote: »

On the surface, I would have to agree that the jump from 5* to 6* seems a bit extreme in comparison to the stat jumps between lower-star champs.

Just looking at the stats, the progression is as follows:

R1 2* = Maxed 1*
R1 3* = R2 2*
R1 4* = R3 3*
R1 5* = R3 4*

It would only make sense for a R1 6* to start somewhere closer to an R3 5*. They seem to start one tier too high.

A game designer should only follow that pattern if the intent of the design is consistent with the pattern. But you shouldn't be beholden to a pattern that doesn't fit the design requirements, especially when that pattern is essentially two points.

The design intent of 6* champions appears to be that they want them to be immediately useful, while simultaneously making them extremely expensive to rank up. Those two requirements constrain 6* champions to be comparable to 4/55 5* champions right out of the gate. If they were only as powerful as 3/45 champions, that would *also* make them only about as powerful as 5/50 4* champions, in rough terms. That would then make them fail to fulfill their design requirement for being high end pursuit items in the game, unless you *also* made them easy to rank up.

To put it another way, the more 6* champions overlap 5* champions, the less useful the entire existence of the initial ranks of the champion are. That might be a lesson they explicitly learned from 5* champions. A rank 1 5* champion is not very useful to most of the players that obtain one, and neither is a rank 2. Rank 3 only makes them roughly equal to 5/50s, which means in a very real sense three of the five ranks that 5* champions are designed to have are intrinsically almost valueless.

It probably isn't that 6* champions start too high, rather 5* champions probably start too low, and that's an error that 6* champions are trying to correct.

Dexman1349

@DNA3000 That makes sense. I was just looking at it from the pattern perspective and ignored the other elements (like rank up costs). Thanks for that extra bit of insight.

Knightarthus

DNA3000 wrote: »

Dexman1349 wrote: »

On the surface, I would have to agree that the jump from 5* to 6* seems a bit extreme in comparison to the stat jumps between lower-star champs.

Just looking at the stats, the progression is as follows:

R1 2* = Maxed 1*
R1 3* = R2 2*
R1 4* = R3 3*
R1 5* = R3 4*

It would only make sense for a R1 6* to start somewhere closer to an R3 5*. They seem to start one tier too high.

A game designer should only follow that pattern if the intent of the design is consistent with the pattern. But you shouldn't be beholden to a pattern that doesn't fit the design requirements, especially when that pattern is essentially two points.

The design intent of 6* champions appears to be that they want them to be immediately useful, while simultaneously making them extremely expensive to rank up. Those two requirements constrain 6* champions to be comparable to 4/55 5* champions right out of the gate. If they were only as powerful as 3/45 champions, that would *also* make them only about as powerful as 5/50 4* champions, in rough terms. That would then make them fail to fulfill their design requirement for being high end pursuit items in the game, unless you *also* made them easy to rank up.

To put it another way, the more 6* champions overlap 5* champions, the less useful the entire existence of the initial ranks of the champion are. That might be a lesson they explicitly learned from 5* champions. A rank 1 5* champion is not very useful to most of the players that obtain one, and neither is a rank 2. Rank 3 only makes them roughly equal to 5/50s, which means in a very real sense three of the five ranks that 5* champions are designed to have are intrinsically almost valueless.

It probably isn't that 6* champions start too high, rather 5* champions probably start too low, and that's an error that 6* champions are trying to correct.

I agree with your analysis but...

For a 5* to be better than out of the box 6* they have to be rank 5. That requires almost the same resources to take a 6* to rank 2. So basically it would almost always make sense to rank the 6*. This makes the 5* instantly underwhelming. That is the problem I was referring to. Unless 6* remain to be extremely rare for a long time then no one should bother ranking a 5* to R5.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Boboman

Knightarthus wrote: »

Even that I pulled one of the worst champions ( Gamora ) the attack, Health and regeneration ( Adrenaline ) quickly overshadows most 5* choices. This means that all the time spent building a strong 5* roster will have a short term benefit only once the 6* are more available.

Just wanted to share the thoughts.

Gamora is not weak and now where near weak

AgentDoom9

Knightarthus wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

Dexman1349 wrote: »

On the surface, I would have to agree that the jump from 5* to 6* seems a bit extreme in comparison to the stat jumps between lower-star champs.

Just looking at the stats, the progression is as follows:

R1 2* = Maxed 1*
R1 3* = R2 2*
R1 4* = R3 3*
R1 5* = R3 4*

It would only make sense for a R1 6* to start somewhere closer to an R3 5*. They seem to start one tier too high.

A game designer should only follow that pattern if the intent of the design is consistent with the pattern. But you shouldn't be beholden to a pattern that doesn't fit the design requirements, especially when that pattern is essentially two points.

The design intent of 6* champions appears to be that they want them to be immediately useful, while simultaneously making them extremely expensive to rank up. Those two requirements constrain 6* champions to be comparable to 4/55 5* champions right out of the gate. If they were only as powerful as 3/45 champions, that would *also* make them only about as powerful as 5/50 4* champions, in rough terms. That would then make them fail to fulfill their design requirement for being high end pursuit items in the game, unless you *also* made them easy to rank up.

To put it another way, the more 6* champions overlap 5* champions, the less useful the entire existence of the initial ranks of the champion are. That might be a lesson they explicitly learned from 5* champions. A rank 1 5* champion is not very useful to most of the players that obtain one, and neither is a rank 2. Rank 3 only makes them roughly equal to 5/50s, which means in a very real sense three of the five ranks that 5* champions are designed to have are intrinsically almost valueless.

It probably isn't that 6* champions start too high, rather 5* champions probably start too low, and that's an error that 6* champions are trying to correct.

I agree with your analysis but...

For a 5* to be better than out of the box 6* they have to be rank 5. That requires almost the same resources to take a 6* to rank 2. So basically it would almost always make sense to rank the 6*. This makes the 5* instantly underwhelming. That is the problem I was referring to. Unless 6* remain to be extremely rare for a long time then no one should bother ranking a 5* to R5.

The thing is having a 5/65 five star obviously makes getting six star shards easier. Look at the new war seasons, all the top dogs with 5/65 blades are going to need those blades to beat aw to get to the top of the leaderboard to get those six stars. Six stars are not instantly useful in war to get more six star shards. For now

MadTitan616

Sigh... here comes the nerf.

DNA3000

Knightarthus wrote: »

DNA3000 wrote: »

Dexman1349 wrote: »

On the surface, I would have to agree that the jump from 5* to 6* seems a bit extreme in comparison to the stat jumps between lower-star champs.

Just looking at the stats, the progression is as follows:

R1 2* = Maxed 1*
R1 3* = R2 2*
R1 4* = R3 3*
R1 5* = R3 4*

It would only make sense for a R1 6* to start somewhere closer to an R3 5*. They seem to start one tier too high.

A game designer should only follow that pattern if the intent of the design is consistent with the pattern. But you shouldn't be beholden to a pattern that doesn't fit the design requirements, especially when that pattern is essentially two points.

The design intent of 6* champions appears to be that they want them to be immediately useful, while simultaneously making them extremely expensive to rank up. Those two requirements constrain 6* champions to be comparable to 4/55 5* champions right out of the gate. If they were only as powerful as 3/45 champions, that would *also* make them only about as powerful as 5/50 4* champions, in rough terms. That would then make them fail to fulfill their design requirement for being high end pursuit items in the game, unless you *also* made them easy to rank up.

To put it another way, the more 6* champions overlap 5* champions, the less useful the entire existence of the initial ranks of the champion are. That might be a lesson they explicitly learned from 5* champions. A rank 1 5* champion is not very useful to most of the players that obtain one, and neither is a rank 2. Rank 3 only makes them roughly equal to 5/50s, which means in a very real sense three of the five ranks that 5* champions are designed to have are intrinsically almost valueless.

It probably isn't that 6* champions start too high, rather 5* champions probably start too low, and that's an error that 6* champions are trying to correct.

I agree with your analysis but...

For a 5* to be better than out of the box 6* they have to be rank 5. That requires almost the same resources to take a 6* to rank 2. So basically it would almost always make sense to rank the 6*. This makes the 5* instantly underwhelming. That is the problem I was referring to. Unless 6* remain to be extremely rare for a long time then no one should bother ranking a 5* to R5.

I don't see that as a problem: I see that as the point of having a higher star rating champion class. If you can afford to do so, you always want to pour your rank up resources into the more powerful thing. Same thing is true for 5* compared to 4* and 4* compared to 3*. But where the relative ranks overlap, the decision of what to rank up becomes a case by case choice between different specific champions. There is still a lot of value to ranking up a Gwenpool to 5/65 over ranking up a 6* Iron Fist to rank 2, for example. And I think at the moment T5B is still a precious enough resource that the difference between needing two and needing three is still significant.

Whenever something new and stronger comes along, there is a certain amount of new and shiny that rubs off the previous new and strong thing. But while 6* champions will, over time, reduce the value of 5* champions, there is still a lot of value in 5* champions and in ranking up 5* champions because that's what you use to earn the 6* champions in the first place. You could say that 6* champions devalue 5* champions and there's some truth to that, but there's also some truth to the notion that the existence of 6* champions becomes a new reward that players will try to pursue by building the strongest 5* champion teams they can, or building the largest 5* rosters they can to start racking up the 6* shard rewards from dups.

Every tier of champion starts off as the top thing for players to chase, then becomes the rank and file thing they use to chase the top thing. To me, this seems to be a natural progression.