**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
So no, people shouldn’t just accept it and say nothing.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Summoner.
😬is it that this game is about to shut down in the near future and you’re trying to grab as much cash as you can before the end???
Not every part of the game revolves around Act 6. The 4* offer is clearly not targeted at endgame players
Also nowhere did anyone state, that the gates will require a team of 5 6* champs so stop talking or getting angry about an issue that doesnt even exist yet
1) Story mode has never been gated by champs, only by talent and resources. This change isn't appropriate for what story mode is, frankly.
2) They announced it one week before. It's stupid and thoughtless. They could've made this announcement around the holidays, when we had special events, t2a on monthly calendars, and increased 5-star shard availability. "Don't worry, Summoners! We're increasing the availability of 5-star shards and rank-up resources in the few months leading up to the release of Act 6!" Are people happy? Eh, probably not. Mutinous? Probably not, and that's good enough.
3) @Kabam Miike responded acknowledging more gated content in Act 6. This was poorly handled for a few reasons. That content won't be out for months, by which time rosters will improve. Also, he says there will be "paths" in future content that operate that way. Well, there's a WORLD of difference between paths requiring certain things and champs being barred entry completely. There's also a world of difference between a path (required for 100% exploration) and a blanket requirement that impedes a first-run completion. No one would've reacted this way if each chapter in 6.1 had a path or two that were 5+ stars only. Hell, I bet many would've been okay if there was even a single path where 4-stars were eligible.
4) The idea that the content "requires" these level champions is simply a lie, and we all know that. 4-star, 5/50 champs are easy to get to high (max, frankly) sigs these days. My 5/50 Medusa has a 10% attack and HP deficit compared to my 3/45 unduped. Once she starts stacking furies, she hits harder than the 5-star, and on the off chance I screw up, autoblock is nearly automatic. Even compared to a duped Medusa, my sig 99 4-star will perform certain tasks better than a 3/45 with a sig in the 20-40 range.
5) Jacking up everyone's synergies is just a way to artifically nerf top-tier champs. It really couldn't be more transparent.
I'm not an endgame player, by any means - LOL and Variant remain untouched - but I'm Gold 1 war / Top 1200 AQ and I've got 9 champs that are 5-star 4/55 or 6-star. I've got 12 more champs at 3/45, and aside from clear niche uses (Medusa against Sentinels, immunities, etc.) they simply aren't as good as my 5/50's.
On your last comment about approaching the fight with the strategy of die/revive/heal up/deal as much as you can. I believe this relates to roster breadth. As mentioned above, there's a 8-10% chance to pull one of the 9-10 champs from each 5* crystal that you can use to handle that node champ combination. With 5*s being made much easily available, as much as the % remains relatively similar (it drops a little every month but not a lot), having more pulls will help.
In addition, there are about 10 paths per quest in 6.1. That node champ combination is probably on one path in one quest. There are another 59 more paths to do. Given the energy requirement, it's suffice to say that people will spend some time on the entire chapter. True, there will be those who will be stuck on more than 1 path, but I'm very sure each quest, similar to UC, will feature a relatively easy path that will make the initial completion achievable for the majority of the playerbase going for it.
It's only exploration that might be an issue but as I mentioned in my reply to Dr Zola, the rewards for Exploration isn't great and doesn't change where players stand in any substantial way. With the rewards, players can neither R3 a 6*, nor have their prestige affected much by having an additional R4. At the very most, whoever 100%s the chapter first gets an additional 1/3 T5B compared to others who haven't. From that perspective, there is no rush to explore the chapter as fast as possible. FOMO is very real, and so is that illusive feeling of "I'm losing out to the players above me", which, IMO, is the fuel for all the rage and anger shown on the forums.
Lastly, to assure those who are worried that the bosses of each quest is someone that you need a specific counter for (which will result in you not being able to complete the quest and proceed to the next and finally completion), that is not the case. You'll need specific counters for individual paths, some clearable with skill, some made easier with the correct counters. But for all bosses, you only require skill to beat them.
Cheers.
Along with that the "adjustment" package could contain a generic 3-->4 crystal as well or other goodies. Still wouldn't address the issue of folks who just don't have suitable candidates for ranking. And having recently pulled 6* AM I am familiar with the pain.
I still think they did this to raise the difficulty of Act 6 without raising the difficulty the usual way with even more nodes and larger health pools.
I see, so you’ve played Act 6 and are confirming that I don’t need to worry. Got it.
I can only go by what they tell me, and all they’ve told me is that x amount will be required to be brought to get past the gates. So, if they require 3 6*’s I’ll be good, if they require 4, I’m stuck. 🤷🏻♂️ Also, I hope my meme tier 6* doesn’t keep me from bringing in my awesome synergy I need cuz I can’t fit them on my team.
Cool.
When you said earlier "The only way Kabam can reconsider the decision on 4* restriction is if most people refuse to do Act 6.1 when it drops" that's almost certainly not what happened with Map 7. In fact I would argue that the reverse happened: more alliances were (and are) running Map 7 than they anticipated, and that they thought the map costs would limit. The problem became one of burnout. Players like to say that the players always know what's best for them, but that's completely false: they generally don't. The links are incredibly annoying and also place a heavy meta-gaming burden on the players - they force players to make themselves available to play the game constantly, separate from any actual gameplay requirements. That shouldn't have been a problem, because players were not expected to run Map 7 constantly. But as I argued when the map costs were first revealed, history says that's not how the top players in any game behave. They will push to unreasonable degrees to play the highest, most rewarding content, as much as possible, to their own detriment. Top players have no throttle.
If I had to guess, I would say the links were reduced in Map 7 to prevent burnout, not to make the map more accessible. And they had to do that because for all the complaints about the costs of running Map 7, they were still set too low to be any barrier at all to top alliances just running Map 7 over and over again. Basically, and of course this is a bit of a simplification, its not that too few players were playing Map 7, too many were playing Map 7 and killing themselves doing it.
That's a true statement, but that's also a good refutation of your earlier statement "the only way Kabam can reconsider the decision on 4* restriction is if most people refuse to do Act 6.1 when it drops." They fully expect most people to not do it, when it initially drops. They probably expect that number to slowly rise over time as more players cross the threshold of having a strong enough roster. So deliberately not doing the content when it first drops is indistinguishable from what they expect. Even worse, it can actually make the situation look even better than it is. It would be good if some players attack the content immediately, and more do over time. That upward curve would suggest to any game developer that the gate is working correctly. But the reverse: some people do it immediately, and fewer people continue to attack it over time, might suggest a problem: the gate might be too harsh, and the only people capable of doing it are veteran players with such large rosters they are already way over the gate.
If a player that *can* do it, decides to deliberately not to it to make some kind of statement, that would lower the number of people doing it immediately. If some percentage of those players eventually cave in and do the content, the number of people doing the content will rise over time due to those defections. That can actually make a broken curve look like a working one. Ironically, if players wanted to make a statement that would show up in datamining, all the players capable of doing Act 6 at all should immediately attempt it at launch. That would deplete the playerbase of players able to do Act 6 and sitting on the sidelines, which means the number of players that "cross the gate" and enter Act 6 would be lower than expected, which could prompt Kabam to reexamine the gate.