**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.
Comments
Game development is always trying to implement compromises among a large number of often opposing priorities and criteria. Almost everything you do as a game developer has at least one really good reason to *not* do it, but you're doing it because there are more reasons to do it than not. To try to accommodate all of those differing priorities you often end up with something that doesn't absolutely honor one priority to the exclusion of all others, which can be used against you when players claim that what you did obviously doesn't "correctly" implement any clear priority.
This game has always had progression gates. A progression gate segregates players into those on one side of the gate and those on the other side of the gate. Whenever you implement a gate, some players will complain when they find themselves on the wrong side of the gate. But that's working as intended: that's the purpose of the gate. If everyone who wanted to be past the gate was past the gate, the gate's worthless.
The gates in the game have generally, but not completely, been implemented from the bottom up, because the nature of the game is that it has grown upward in complexity and difficulty (it can't really be otherwise). The earliest gates could use simple metrics that existed in the game, for example level gates. But as the game continued to grow upward, those metrics simply "ran out" and they had to resort to other progression metrics to continue to gate the game. Uncollected, for example, is a novel (in this game) gate: it isn't just a prerequisite to get to the next piece of content, it unlocks a lot of other development opportunities in the form of enhanced crystals and higher reward monthly content. Importantly, this kind of gate didn't exist until it did: it set the precedent that the devs were willing to add new kinds of gates to the game.
Level is an obvious metric that measures progress. Which content you complete is another one. But another measure of progress that has always existed in the game is roster strength. It factors into prestige which influences AQ rewards (and at one time prestige was *the* metric for progress for level-capped players). It has in the past been the metric used to calibrate things like compensation packages based on progress. It is a highly imperfect metric of progress, but it was *used* in the game.
The devs wanted a new progress gate leading into Act 6 and the ones that had been used previously were seen as inadequate. They didn't want it to be a trivial prerequisite like do 5.1 and you get to do 5.2. Prerequisites aren't progress gates, because there's no well-defined barrier to overcome beyond just keep playing (players can argue that this should be sufficient, which is tantamount to saying no progress gates should exist at all, but that's a separate complicated argument).
The obvious option is roster-based progress gates. But prestige is too narrow and player rating is too disconnected from actual progress. If the top five champs is too small and counting everything is too large, then measuring a subset of the top champs would be a reasonable compromise between the two. There are a couple of ways to do this. One way would be to extend prestige to a larger number of champs; say there was a fifteen champ version of prestige, and it took a certain minimum rating to enter Act 6.
This sort of thing emphasizes rank ups, because it doesn't matter how many champs you have, what matters more is how highly ranked they were. And rank up decisions are heavily influenced by which champs you pull randomly from crystals - some are more "deserving" of rare rank up materials than others. Back before Alliance War was really important and AQ was the primary game in town, players often ranked up champs with the highest rating, not the ones they wanted to play the most, because prestige was emphasized by AQ.
I wouldn't want to repeat that situation, and I'm guessing the devs don't want to either. So it is worth looking for an alternative to roster-metrics that emphasize ranking up the highest rating champs. But if we aren't going to use a ratings lock, is there a softer way to do it? Sure: we can limit which champs the players can bring in, so that instead of emphasizing reaching the highest possible rating with rank ups, the game instead tends to reward players with the widest rosters, from which those players will have more options available from the entry limits.
The entry limit can't be too low: it can't simply be "everything 4* and higher" or even "everything CR100 and higher (which includes 5/50 champs)" because that makes the options pool too large: the progress gate isn't rewarding particularly large rosters, because the limit allows almost anything (among players for whom Act 6 is even a possibility). It could be CR110 and higher, or it could be 5* and higher. And of those two options, once again 5* and higher deemphasizes high rank ups relative to CR110.
To me, this all seems entirely reasonable. I'm not saying it should necessarily be convincing for anyone else, only that a reasonable person could reach this conclusion. And yes, there are side effects that many players would argue are unacceptable, such as the impact on synergy tactics. But the question of whether those are acceptable or unacceptable is a value judgment, not an objective conclusion. Two different reasonable rational actors can differ on that judgment. The devs may simply have a different option. That isn't something you can demand someone "justify" or explain to one's satisfaction.
Dr. Zola
the community into 2 groups. Those willing to spend to get 5 and 6* champs from crystals and those who wont. They are basically saying if you want new content you need to meet the requirement by buying the crystals that have a 5% drop rate of a useable champ while at the same time telling players they are trying to maintain balance and an enjoyable experience. for those of us who have completed all other in game content to be told that half or more of our profiles are now worthless is unacceptable. Again I'm fine with spending on a game I feel is enjoyable but this forced spending with poor rng odds is not right. Rationalize it how you want but I'd like a response from kabam explaining why they feel it's right to create this gate and force loyal players and customers away from their game.
Dr. Zola
This does not gate contet only demands additional units from players to acquire the latest and greatest champs to play the game.
Why buy FGMC if I can only use 5% of the rewards for act 6?
And I was there at 12.0; I was one of those players asking for further information and explanations. And unlike you, I accepted those responses and used the information in them to work with other players to get actual things changed in the game, like Dr. Strange's heal (albeit not enough), Captain America's block proficiency, and Parry mechanics in general. I worked with other players to write guides for the mechanics of Diminishing Returns and Challenge Rating. I know the difference between advocating for change and waving my arms around like a lunatic.
Dr. Zola