**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
If content creators can't be trusted because of the assumption of Kabam influence, then no forum poster can be similarly trusted to be objective, neither you nor I nor anyone else, because Kabam exerts more influence on us than it does them.
Someone will mention money, but that's less than irrelevant because Youtubers make money ranting about changes that we can't rant about here, because rants are not allowed here. But Kabam allows Youtubers including content creator program members to rant about game changes all the time, and Youtubers do make money off those rant views. There's actually a huge *incentive* to complain about game changes and to explicitly disagree with Kabam, because you'd get far more views from videos complaining about changes than agreeing with changes.
Factoring financial incentives makes it more likely that youtube content creators would be biased *against* Kabam rather than in favor of them, because that's almost certainly where the money actually is.
Vision (like you said)
Quake (high block damage but possible at r4+)
Psylocke (sp1 draining to 0 power prevents all power gain)
Modok (sp1 reverses power gain buffs)
Luke Cage (same as MODOK with 4+ exhaustion debuffs + invulnerability when duped)
Void (petrify debuffs when power gain buffs are active)
Duped Cap IW w/tech champ (same as Void)
Ghost w/Hood synergy (phase during sp3)
Doctor Octopus (power lock)
Doctor Voodoo (sp2 power burn prevents sp3)
Spider-Man Stark Enhanced (heavy attack power drain)
Spider-Gwen (sp1 enervate)
The Extinction Protocol node was introduced in Variant with 3.2 Ultron's boss. I remember that fight's power gain not being as bad as I'd expected. Cable's power gain buff makes that node more difficult, a handful of the above champions should still be able to solo that fight without boosts.
For example, you will need a champ that inflicts bleed but you don't have Blade, AA or Gwenpool. Instead you're looking to Black Panther, Guilly, or Drax. The major source of contention from the player base here is that while we may have those lower-tiered champs, we don't necessarily have resources readily available to rank those up because they aren't very good elsewhere in the game.
So in addition to a champion rarity gate, it also is a bit of a resource gate as well.
It is never this simple, but you can imagine different developers representing different positions, each advocating a set of imperatives. Developer A says they want Act 6 to have a quantum jump forward in difficulty: they don't want to keep making difficulty jumps in tiny increments. The people doing that content can't even notice that difficulty is rising: they keep complaining that nothing changes. And if we keep gradually increasing difficulty in such a way that players can easily adjust to it, then "relative" difficulty never increases, and thus rewards can't increase either (as rewards are tied to relative difficulty, not absolute difficulty, at least when the content is first introduced).
Then developer B says fine, make Act 6 way harder, but then everyone will try it and then complain we made it too hard, its a cash grab, we only care about the whales, etc etc. If we're going to have to eat that criticism anyway, put a progress gate into it so only the highest tier players can even enter it. That way we can tune the difficulty for those players, our datamining won't be skewed by all the lower progress players trying and failing it, and to be candid half of them will tell the other half to "get gud" and the social dynamics surrounding the content will make difficulty complaints have way less traction.
Developer C now jumps in and says "if we make a progress gate based on roster we should make it so players have to bring rank 4 and higher 5* champs (and 6* champs). Those are the "upper tier" champs anyway.
Developer D counters: that will encourage players to rank up whatever they have, even if they were saving for more optimal rank ups, and they will argue they were "forced" to do so, even though Act 6 is going to be around forever and they didn't have to do that immediately. And if we make the progress gate tied to rank itself, that will put a lot of pressure immediately on rank up material availability. I don't want the progress gate to be based on rank, I would rather it be based on rarity. We're making 5* champs more available anyway, this directly ties the gate to something that's already increasing over time.
Then Developer E jumps in and says "hey, I have an idea: lets delay the whole thing into Act 7, and lets put in a new currency and unlock system and a store that allows specific subsets of the progress lock to be bypassed and then" - and then they send that guy to fetch lunch (trust me, I've been there more times than I can count).
None of them necessarily wants exactly what the design ends up being, but the design ends up factoring all of their concerns in and generating something that sits at the blurry center of their combined preferences. You end up with a progress gate, based on roster, factoring in high rarity champs, connected to a reward system that is already scheduled to increase the availability of those rarity champs over time which will depreciate the gate strength over time.
Because this is how these things often go, it isn't easy for one person to specify the precise thought process that went into it. In fact, I've had conversations with multiple developers involved with a game change where each one of them honestly though the "reason" for the change was something completely different.
It could be that there's just one singular architect for the whole thing. If so, I would have different questions for that one person than if it was a collaboration. But in my experience, something of this magnitude is usually a collaborative effort, and usually no one person authoritatively draws a line in the sand (except the deadline guy, he usually draws a line in the sand).
Also you are saying that using 4* "COULD" lead to frustration and then saying that it is "UNDENIABLY TRUE".
Sorry but you can't really say something like that is true because you can't speak on behalf of everyone. You yourself say it "COULD"
Talking about people complaining about UC quest, there is a mixed bag of reason for peoples complaint. People using 5* also complain it is too difficult. I would say not having the right counter/champ for certain fights is probably also a big driver for the complaints. I will expect to see quite a lot of complaints when we get act, 6 looking at some of the nodes and champions people will have to face with a limited roster.
Now having looked at Lags CCP video on act 6, i can see where this frustration they talk about would come from, which is the degen damage and block damage you will be taking. On a r4 and r5 Champion that degen isn't so bad and doesn't seem as punishing. On 4* and r3 5* i can see it being very punishing. Again not sure why they didn't just explain that, if it is one of the reasons for this rarity gating.
We could spend days in the "because why, because why...." cycle, but there's also a great deal that isn't even at play yet. There could be a number of things upcoming in the future, both for people at Cavalier and not. There could be a new level of EQ level that is at the level of Cavalier, increased incentives for those who aren't Cavalier, added help to prepare for Act 6, I mean we just don't know what's planned for the future. All that will be seen. In any event, that's the gate they've set.
Straight from the kabams ceo mouth, so you tell me who’s lying @Kabam Miike him, or are you guys lying to him on wtf y’all are doing
🤔🤔🤔
Dr. Zola
Like what someone mentioned earlier, because the nodes are so diverse, you’re looking to dig DEEP into your roster for options to counter certain node champ combinations. I also previously stated that the playerbase are too focused on “god tier champs” that they forget that there are other “non-god tier champs” who are capable of handling the node.
The current mindset of the vast majority of the playerbase is “there is an optimal counter, the #1 choice, one of the ONLY few choices” that can be used. If I don’t have a 5/6* Variant of it, I’ll use my 4* one. That mindset is so restrictive.
IMIW? Oh man I need a Corvus or Void or I’m never passing him. 😒 Don’t have a 5* one? Let me use my 4* one.
But people never stop to think, “hey.. I might be able to use that unused 5* Elektra or 5* Falcon to take him down.”