**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Comments
I would have to say that for this RDT's are NOT appropriate. They won't do much to help compensate for the BS they did to AQ.
We decided that till AQ is balanced again we will only run free maps and not request anyone revive. SQ right now is in the class of SA and item use... do what you can but don't go crazy and spend to do so.
The point is, you objected to RDTs because of Kabam's earlier statement about them being used for champion changes. Asking for RUTs avoids that objection entirely. If you now object because they "provide the means to accommodate rosters based on content changes" that's actually the explicit reason for asking for them in the first place: to accommodate roster changes to react to content changes. Under ordinary circumstances that should be handled with normal rank ups, but the devs themselves created a situation where that is impossible. When the devs create a situation where the intended player reaction is impossible, it is up to them to remove the situation or add the ability to perform the desired reaction.
Yes, they can. Not sure why you're telling me this.
I don't know what "the" problem is, but it solves "a" problem. It solves the problem that the devs apparently want players to change tactics, and part of changing tactics by their own statements is to consider different champions to bring to AQ. That generally requires rank up materials that players are unlikely to have in the quantities necessary to perform the experimentation the devs intend a time frame that is reasonable.
The alternative is something other games have but would almost certainly take too long to implement. Some games have test beds that players can experiment with before committing expensive upgrades. Such an environment would allow players to perform the experimentation necessary to do what the devs claim they intend players to do without it being a ridiculously expensive and stressful situation in alliance play.
The point to RDTs is not to allow players to rank *down* anything, it is to allow players to rank *up* new things, which is what the devs apparently thought players could do by magic.
That the point reviving equals spending
But what if you want to lower difficulty and points? Suppose that an alliance's prestige generates a map more difficult than the skill level of the players? That can happen, because it is entirely possible for prestige to go up through rank ups in a way that doesn't commensurately improve the actual ability to complete content. If the alliance "outranks" their skill, how do they reduce the difficulty and points they can earn to rebalance difficulty and their skill level? At the moment the only way to do that is to drop an entire map level downward, which is an enormous change to difficulty. Dropping down from Map 5 to Map 4, for example, reduces the number of simultaneous paths, it reduces the node difficulty and it reduces the opponent difficulty. It also radically reduces rewards. (I'm ignoring selling off their top prestige champions as too stupid to even consider).
Setting aside changing maps, the game doesn't offer any reasonable option for an alliance that has "outranked their skill." If they rank up champions and increase their prestige, they increase their map difficulty whether they want the extra points or not. This is true completely independent of the Sentinel change. But the Sentinel change highlights the fact that the game decides what difficulty to hand you in a way that isn't strongly correlated to how strong you are. If you fight an alliance war and you lose, the game will hand you a weaker opponent next time. But if you fail AQ, you still get handed the same difficulty next time. I'm aware that prestige increases are also dependent on map completion within a single week, but that doesn't change the overriding issue. In fact, even if you fail a map the difficulty for the next day can still go up, just by less than if you complete it.
I think this compounds the difficulty of the Sentinels. The Sentinels arbitrarily jump difficulty upward, and the players have no way to elect to face lesser difficulty for less points. And the very thing that is being recommended - rank up even more champions to counter them - is also indirectly increasing the difficulty of the maps. If the primary method of adjusting to higher difficulty actually makes the difficulty even higher, that's a meta-gaming failure.
If there was a way for an alliance to say, our starting prestige is 5000 but the champions we are facing are too strong for our members, we would like to have our starting prestige for the week be 4500 instead, that might also help alleviate some of the problems Sentinels and the new minibosses are creating. It puts some power into the players hands to accept less points for less difficulty, and gives them a way to create a better learning curve for their members if the current one is too steep.
We've just posted an update in regards to your feedback on Alliance Quests. This post includes some adjustments to Sentinels and Alliance Quests that will be coming with the next series. Take a look right here: http://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/62626/upcoming-adjustments-to-alliance-quests-april-18th-2018
Thanks Miike.
Great. But what about the issue of 4/55 champs timing out against Morning Star on day 3???
Another "theory" shot down in flames
I don't think that returns difficulty to what it used to be, which is still Kabam's official position. But it is a step in the right direction. Keep in mind that against anything Sentinels can build significant analysis charges against they will eventually have a higher attack rating than the 15% reduction imposes upon them.
If you're going to adjust the Sentinel minions directly, I think some thought should go into the class relationship effects. Right now Sentinels are strong against all but one class, on top of being especially strong against one class. That is another option-narrowing aspect of the Sentinels that contributes to making them significantly stronger than the Syms they replaced, and for that matter significantly stronger than many of the named champions on the same map.
Did I not say I could be wrong? Clearly they were gathering sufficient data either way. You really do go out of your way to start with me, don't you? Lol. Not today. Have a nice day.
The AQ scoring data from last week indicated to me that there was a high probability Kabam would do something. The signal was simply too strong to be ignored, regardless of qualitative feedback.
The actual number changes suggest to me a certain kind of number shuffling was done that as a player, well its better than nothing, and as an engineer, well, as long as they aren't designing bridges I have to drive over.
Yes but the way they went out of their way to defend that there wasn't a significant increase in difficulty made me think they would ignore complaints. Not to mention several trolls in the forum supporting the changes.
As was mentioned, they didn't aim to have the difficulty increased that much. As much feedback as was given, they also had to gather data before considering adjustments. I don't think they're trying to avoid giving Rewards. The aim was to swap and freshen it up, pending the new Season.
That’s a fair line of reasoning. To be honest, I’m not fussed about the rewards much. What gets me, is that it has become such a slog to get through aq. Yes, it’s a little harder but it’s infinitely more tedious to run aq. I’m hoping the changes will address that. More tedious content for rewards that are months out of date for the state of the game - that is my real gripe.
Just thinking this is a not to up the rewards,
Not just for AQ but for other stuff.
I totally agree