The T2A shortage. The struggle is real.

13»

Comments

  • Atticus9090Atticus9090 Posts: 521 ★★
    gohard123 wrote: »

    In my honest opinion, I don’t see any other reason as to why someone would be against this idea, unless they are either 1.) Very Selfish, or 2.)Don’t want more players to challenge them at the top

    This is a very limited view.

    I’m curious. Please induldge me as to some other reasons why the player base would like the cost of r4 5*s being reduced?

    Other than the point of people ending up getting some of their resources back and ranking up god tier defenders (although every champ has a counter)

    Not trying to be sarcastic or condescending here either. Just genuinely curious
  • Atticus9090Atticus9090 Posts: 521 ★★
    gohard123 wrote: »

    In my honest opinion, I don’t see any other reason as to why someone would be against this idea, unless they are either 1.) Very Selfish, or 2.)Don’t want more players to challenge them at the top

    This is a very limited view.

    I’m curious. Please induldge me as to some other reasons why the player base would like the cost of r4 5*s being reduced?

    Other than the point of people ending up getting some of their resources back and ranking up god tier defenders (although every champ has a counter)

    Not trying to be sarcastic or condescending here either. Just genuinely curious

    Wouldn’t*
  • xNigxNig Posts: 6,444 ★★★★★
    Jobi_Man wrote: »
    Well i think the main point is the ramp up of t2a is resulting in a lot of players having 5*r3 that collect dust that otherwise could be upgraded if the cost of the most valuable resource wasnt so high to take them to r4. I think adjusring the r4 rank ip to 1 and r5 to 3 and 6* r2 to 5 isca much more gradual increase that would be healthy to revitalize rank ups into the middle tier players. Seems the t2a problem is mostly affecting us in the middle
    Jh_Dez wrote: »
    I don't see the need for a refund if the cost of t2a to rank champs reduces
    Kabam reducing the cost is more than enough

  • Atticus9090Atticus9090 Posts: 521 ★★
    xNig wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    Effective wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    OP, how many r4s do you have?

    And can you list down the permanent content that you have 100% explored?

    5 r4s. 1 r5. 3 6*s.

    Haven't 100% Act 5 yet.

    So... you still have a5 to do and you’re complaining about content being insufficient?

    In my honest opinion, I don’t see any other reason as to why someone would be against this idea, unless they are either 1.) Very Selfish, or 2.)Don’t want more players to challenge them at the top




    P.S. I have also seen you on another thread about adding a Median Difficulty for Ultron’s Assault, and your provided some somewhat valid points to that. Therefore I didn’t bother to reply to you. Although some of your argument was rather crude and simple, which slightly ticked me off.

    But for this one, I just don’t understand your point. So I had to speak out on it

    No. Really. The stages in the game that you are in and where I am is very different.

    As much as I'd like to be politically correct and stroke someone elses' ego by agreeing with them, I'd much rather like to be honest and straightforward with my views. And yes, the truth hurts.

    Since we are on the topic of UA, having a Medium Difficulty just undermines it being end game content. People are unhappy because they look at the rewards, turn green with envy, and get jealous of people who are in the position to attain those rewards because "people who are ahead of me will advance faster than me and I can't catch up".

    Then they comfort themselves by saying, "Well if I can't get the whole pie, at least I have some crumbs." And they get sorely disappointed that there are no crumbs included this time round, unlike the monthly EQ.

    That line of thinking is just childish and ridiculous. The logic is as simple as "if it's not meant for you now, it's not meant for you NOW".

    You missed my point. I don’t want to talk
    About Ultron’s Assault on this thread. I understand that not everyone has the same views about the cost of T2Alphas to rank up a 5* to rank 4.

    But you still didn’t answer my question. Are the any other reasons as to why it wouldn’t be right to lower the cost besides : Selfishness, Top tier player not wanting more of a challenge (although I thought they would), or in general, the possibility of seeing more Hard defenders being ranked bc of the refunded resources (if his idea was implemented)

    No offense. But as I learned earlier in life, Someone’s opinions do not matter if they don’t have a good solid reasoning behind those opinions.

    For example, You can’t say: I like watching TV, just because you like watching tv. This makes your opinion on TV irrelevant.
  • Jh_DezJh_Dez Posts: 1,270 ★★★
    xNig wrote: »
    Jobi_Man wrote: »
    Well i think the main point is the ramp up of t2a is resulting in a lot of players having 5*r3 that collect dust that otherwise could be upgraded if the cost of the most valuable resource wasnt so high to take them to r4. I think adjusring the r4 rank ip to 1 and r5 to 3 and 6* r2 to 5 isca much more gradual increase that would be healthy to revitalize rank ups into the middle tier players. Seems the t2a problem is mostly affecting us in the middle
    Jh_Dez wrote: »
    I don't see the need for a refund if the cost of t2a to rank champs reduces
    Kabam reducing the cost is more than enough

    Didn't even see this
    Just saw some condemning t2a cost reduction and also asking for a refund
    Hence my first comment
  • xNigxNig Posts: 6,444 ★★★★★
    xNig wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    Effective wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    OP, how many r4s do you have?

    And can you list down the permanent content that you have 100% explored?

    5 r4s. 1 r5. 3 6*s.

    Haven't 100% Act 5 yet.

    So... you still have a5 to do and you’re complaining about content being insufficient?

    In my honest opinion, I don’t see any other reason as to why someone would be against this idea, unless they are either 1.) Very Selfish, or 2.)Don’t want more players to challenge them at the top




    P.S. I have also seen you on another thread about adding a Median Difficulty for Ultron’s Assault, and your provided some somewhat valid points to that. Therefore I didn’t bother to reply to you. Although some of your argument was rather crude and simple, which slightly ticked me off.

    But for this one, I just don’t understand your point. So I had to speak out on it

    No. Really. The stages in the game that you are in and where I am is very different.

    As much as I'd like to be politically correct and stroke someone elses' ego by agreeing with them, I'd much rather like to be honest and straightforward with my views. And yes, the truth hurts.

    Since we are on the topic of UA, having a Medium Difficulty just undermines it being end game content. People are unhappy because they look at the rewards, turn green with envy, and get jealous of people who are in the position to attain those rewards because "people who are ahead of me will advance faster than me and I can't catch up".

    Then they comfort themselves by saying, "Well if I can't get the whole pie, at least I have some crumbs." And they get sorely disappointed that there are no crumbs included this time round, unlike the monthly EQ.

    That line of thinking is just childish and ridiculous. The logic is as simple as "if it's not meant for you now, it's not meant for you NOW".

    You missed my point. I don’t want to talk
    About Ultron’s Assault on this thread. I understand that not everyone has the same views about the cost of T2Alphas to rank up a 5* to rank 4.

    But you still didn’t answer my question. Are the any other reasons as to why it wouldn’t be right to lower the cost besides : Selfishness, Top tier player not wanting more of a challenge (although I thought they would), or in general, the possibility of seeing more Hard defenders being ranked bc of the refunded resources (if his idea was implemented)

    No offense. But as I learned earlier in life, Someone’s opinions do not matter if they don’t have a good solid reasoning behind those opinions.

    For example, You can’t say: I like watching TV, just because you like watching tv. This makes your opinion on TV irrelevant.
    xNig wrote: »
    Jh_Dez wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    It's simple because @Jh_Dez is undermining the efforts that top tier players have put in to acquire the T2A. In a sense, he just wants a shortcut to get his roster stronger faster.

    I'm not against that, but the least that can be done (and included in the suggestion) is to compensate those who have already spent their T2As on R4/5s.
    Jh_Dez wrote: »
    I don't see the need for a refund if the cost of t2a to rank champs reduces
    Kabam reducing the cost is more than enough

    This comment just shows little thought was put into his suggestion of reducing rank up costs. It's either that, or he is desperate to close the gap between himself and end game players by giving such a selfish suggestion.

    now you're just speculating stupidly
    And cover what gap?
    If the cost of using t2a reduces, its not like its impeding the rate at which you get them. Better yet you'll be able to r4 champs faster than you can as at now. So why's a refund necessary?
    So as always "end game" players will still be at the top
    Or basically now that phc's costs 60 units do you want a refund on all phc you purchased during your time of play?

    In that case, should we listen to your advice, we need to even the playing field a little.

    Would you be ok if your suggestion of reducing the cost of R3->R4 is reduced to 1 T2A, and the following rewards are reduced
    - All players stashed T2As are divided by 4.
    - Act 4 exploration now rewards 1 T2A instead of 4.
    - LOL Completion rewards 1 T2A instead of 4.
    - LOL Exploration rewards 2 T2A instead of 8.
    (Yeah you should get the flow of where things are going.)

    The general idea that you are trying to push is to make T2A more available. I'm perfectly fine with you campaigning for more ways to get T2A but reducing the cost for ranking up champs is just a very very badly thought out suggestion.

  • Atticus9090Atticus9090 Posts: 521 ★★
    @xNig now that you have put your opinion into perspective, I see the slight error in the plan of reducing the rank up cost in terms of the amount of T2Alphas needed.

    However, I am glad that you agree with my point on how there can be more ways that can be implemented into the game in order to gain more T2Alphas.

    See? That wasn’t so bad wasn’t it? We came to a conclusion in which we both compromised somewhat ! :wink:
  • Midknight007Midknight007 Posts: 718 ★★★
    Jh_Dez wrote: »
    xNig wrote: »
    It's simple because @Jh_Dez is undermining the efforts that top tier players have put in to acquire the T2A. In a sense, he just wants a shortcut to get his roster stronger faster.

    I'm not against that, but the least that can be done (and included in the suggestion) is to compensate those who have already spent their T2As on R4/5s.
    Jh_Dez wrote: »
    I don't see the need for a refund if the cost of t2a to rank champs reduces
    Kabam reducing the cost is more than enough

    This comment just shows little thought was put into his suggestion of reducing rank up costs. It's either that, or he is desperate to close the gap between himself and end game players by giving such a selfish suggestion.

    now you're just speculating stupidly
    And cover what gap?
    If the cost of using t2a reduces, its not like its impeding the rate at which you get them. Better yet you'll be able to r4 champs faster than you can as at now. So why's a refund necessary?
    So as always "end game" players will still be at the top
    Or basically now that phc's costs 60 units do you want a refund on all phc you purchased during your time of play?

    As much as I disagree with xNig on some of his points, on this one I agree with him.

    Reducing the cost to rank up would favor those like I who have a stash of T2A for another R4... it is mainly from lack of good pulls of champs I want to R4. So I am waiting on my next 2. If you reduce the cost to half, I can rank up twice the amount of champs as opposed to those that already ranked, and thus creating a decrease in xNig’s effort.

    Instead of reducing cost of ranking, we need an increase of availability in EQ, arena and other sources. It would benefit all who have spent years developing rosters and allow everyone to advance their depth at the same pace.
  • xNigxNig Posts: 6,444 ★★★★★
    @xNig now that you have put your opinion into perspective, I see the slight error in the plan of reducing the rank up cost in terms of the amount of T2Alphas needed.

    However, I am glad that you agree with my point on how there can be more ways that can be implemented into the game in order to gain more T2Alphas.

    See? That wasn’t so bad wasn’t it? We came to a conclusion in which we both compromised somewhat ! :wink:

    Haha. This could have been avoided if you read my post bro.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 28,390 ★★★★★
    OKAYGang wrote: »
    Whether you spend or not, there are limits to Resources. Depending on what stage you're at, those limits will vary. Progress has to come at a pace, otherwise there's no balance. People starting out wouldn't be able to grow fast enough to get in the mix, those in the middle would never catch up to those on top, and those on top would continually grow faster and faster. There's always going to be some limiting Resource.

    What is this balance you speak of? Do you ever check the leaderboards? The same alliance has been on top since four years ago when I started playing. Here let me save you the trouble.

    q4758ngu36l8.png

    Check again next year and the year after that too, it will still look the same.

    That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about balancing progression. Those that start out grow fast, those in the middle slow down more, those higher up go slower. This is so that people starting out can progress, and people on the higher end aren't going too fast. Not the Top 4 on the Leaderboard. That's not unusual for Leaderboards in general. They're on top because they've been on top, they have everything they need, and it'll take a lot to move them. Same as most games I've played. When I'm talking about Resources, there are limits. Those limits will be different at different stages. When you have the higher demographic, not just the Top 4, and they have access to all the Champs, AND all the Resources to Rank them, that spells a recipe for disaster for anyone below trying to progress. They never will.
  • Spurgeon14Spurgeon14 Posts: 1,438 ★★★
    xNig wrote: »
    Jobi_Man wrote: »
    Well i think the main point is the ramp up of t2a is resulting in a lot of players having 5*r3 that collect dust that otherwise could be upgraded if the cost of the most valuable resource wasnt so high to take them to r4. I think adjusring the r4 rank ip to 1 and r5 to 3 and 6* r2 to 5 isca much more gradual increase that would be healthy to revitalize rank ups into the middle tier players. Seems the t2a problem is mostly affecting us in the middle

    Trust me, it’s a bad idea and you won’t wanna know the refunds top players are gonna get from this change.

    Me alone have 3 R5s and 10 R4s.

    With your suggestion, each r5 I have will get a 6 t2a refund and each r4 will have 3.

    That’ll be 18 + 30 = 38 T2A.

    I guess you like facing more Dominos and Korgs on defense.

    While I don't think they should lower the rank up requirements, I do think they should increase how much T2A can be collected to decrease the time it takes to rank up 5* to R4. AW is currently broken, I don't really care if the rich at the top keep getting richer. No matter what happens those players will be top players.
  • hungryhungrybbqhungryhungrybbq Posts: 1,601 ★★★★
    Agree, the availability of T2 seems off. I have 3 T5 basics I can't use. Haven't opened any cc crystals in a while either.
  • In my honest opinion, I don’t see any other reason as to why someone would be against this idea, unless they are either 1.) Very Selfish, or 2.)Don’t want more players to challenge them at the top

    I'm not sure I'm against the idea, but I'm very cautious about this kind of bottleneck change because it always has the obvious but apparently not so obvious side effect that reducing or eliminating bottlenecks tends to benefit the people at the top more than the people who think they are benefiting more. If there are currently players earning several times more T2A than you, then reducing the costs of T2A will not only make it easier for you to rank up, it will make it easier for them to rank up even more.

    This has non-linear effects you really have to think about. For example, if players around your progress level have one r4 and you have none, that's a huge benefit they have or conversely a huge deficit you have. But if they have four and you have three, that one-more rank 4 they have isn't as much of an advantage. The advantage has been diluted somewhat. But if you have a couple and other players are able to rank up a ton, one non-linear effect that crops up is that you might have a couple to use on AW offense while they have enough to load up on offense *and* stack their defense. That means you will actually face a harder game even though your champions themselves got stronger. A less direct effect can occur in AQ where your ranking could drop if other alliances overtake your prestige.

    Bottlenecks can act as soft-caps on the highest level players. It is much easier for lower tier players to "fill in" their 5* rosters than it is for the top players to rank them up past 4/55 and up to 5/65. The introduction of 6* champions actually levels the playing field slightly: it isn't easy for top tier players to earn vastly more 6* shards than everyone else: they do earn more, but not as much more as other rank up materials. Every 6* champ I pull goes immediately to 1/25 and it costs me no more than it costs a top tier player to do that, and it is expensive even for them to rank it up to 2/35. Because 6* rank 2 is expensive and rank 3 is impossible, second tier players are actually closing the gap with top tier players *slightly*. They aren't ever going to close that gap much, but the rank up costs are limiting how far ahead they can go.

    I don't know that it helps me in the long run to get a couple more r4s if it also means anyone higher than me is going to completely fill their roster with r4s. It puts pressure on Kabam to release the rank up materials for 6* r3, and once they do the top tier will race away from everyone else again. That's inevitable and even essential to happen eventually (the top tier has to be rewarded with that capability periodically), but every day it doesn't happen is better for the lower tier players.
  • Timone147Timone147 Posts: 1,276 ★★★★
    edited November 2018
    T2a are just like t4cc we’re back in the day. This will change soon as they are adding more and more ways to get t2a just like they did t4cc. It’s standard progression models. I would see t2a becoming more prevelant as they introduce t5cc as the new highest end carrot for top tier and t5 basics become progression bottleneck for everyone.

    Of course this is an over time transition for these so it will still be a while before this opens up and even then it will be slowly increased over time. By then though this post will be about t5b though as it’s a viscous cycle in reality
  • I'm the same been playing for about 3 1/2 years. Got 4 T2a left then that's it. It'll be 4+ months until I could do another r4 5* or 6 months to r5 a 5*. If want people to play then they need to be made more available or else people will stop playing. Isn't a good business model.
  • SMNYSMNY Posts: 69
    There’s another topic where guys are complaining that they have so many T2 alphas that they are expiring. Someone should create a YouYube to show them how they can use them to upgrade champ before they expire maybe?
Sign In or Register to comment.