Maybe instead of a 4* Ban, there could be a global node that auto kills 4*. Would solve the synergy problem while still maintaining Kabams goal.
Making the decision to BAN 4 Star Champions from Act 6 is BEYOND a cheap move.But dropping the news on the community ONE WEEK before the release of Act 6 that 4 Star Champions are now completely useless for future story progression when you've been constantly selling 4 Star awakening gems, 4 Star rank up gem packages and 4 Star Champion crystals is just straight up a trash tier move.There are no valid reasons why 4 Stars shouldn't be allowed in Act 5 other than you want to encourage more people to buy 5 Star Champions.This game should be about skill & strategy, 4 Stars have always been a great way to fill roster gaps, even in high tier content like Act 5, Variant 100% & Endgame challenges.This is honestly a shameful decision.You've taken a lot of steps in the right direction over the last couple of years, but this is a HUGE step in the wrong direction.Allow 4 Stars in Act 6.
also people who need to rely on the crutches that are champion synergies need to learn to adapt.yes synergies are great.yes they make things easier.but thats just it.they should make it easier for you to do things.not be the only way you are able to do things.if you need danger sense to kill modok you need to practice and learn to kil modok.if you need wasp to make ghost good you need to practice more and good without. yes it makes things easier much much easier to the point of almost too easy but she is still great by herself.I have 5/65 Medusa. i barely use royal family synergy.synergies make the job easier but should not be the crutch you rely upon.practice without, improve your skills, it may be hard, it may take time but your skills will improve and you will be a better player for it.
Maybe instead of a 4* Ban, there could be a global node that auto kills 4*. Would solve the synergy problem while still maintaining Kabams goal. An alternative would be having a Chapter (or Act) Global Node that gives a passive 50% Weakness on the Attacker and +100% Champion Boost for the Defender if anything below a 5* is used.This keeps 4*s still relevant, addresses Kabam’s goal on having roster exploration by discouraging (but not eliminating the use of 4*s), allows very skilled players to still use their rosters, and bring lower rarity champions along for synergies. At the end of the day, having the “choice” to bring a champ that people have ranked is important to them.
Maybe instead of a 4* Ban, there could be a global node that auto kills 4*. Would solve the synergy problem while still maintaining Kabams goal. An alternative would be having a Chapter (or Act) Global Node that gives a passive 50% Weakness on the Attacker and +100% Champion Boost for the Defender if anything below a 5* is used.This keeps 4*s still relevant, addresses Kabam’s goal on having roster exploration by discouraging (but not eliminating the use of 4*s), allows very skilled players to still use their rosters, and bring lower rarity champions along for synergies. At the end of the day, having the “choice” to bring a champ that people have ranked is important to them. Personally not a fan of that idea. Why reduce the effectiveness of a 4* when, I believe, they’re already up against that challenger rating or whatever it’s called.
Maybe instead of a 4* Ban, there could be a global node that auto kills 4*. Would solve the synergy problem while still maintaining Kabams goal. An alternative would be having a Chapter (or Act) Global Node that gives a passive 50% Weakness on the Attacker and +100% Champion Boost for the Defender if anything below a 5* is used.This keeps 4*s still relevant, addresses Kabam’s goal on having roster exploration by discouraging (but not eliminating the use of 4*s), allows very skilled players to still use their rosters, and bring lower rarity champions along for synergies. At the end of the day, having the “choice” to bring a champ that people have ranked is important to them. Personally not a fan of that idea. Why reduce the effectiveness of a 4* when, I believe, they’re already up against that challenger rating or whatever it’s called. It would still allow synergies while at the same time allow kabam to devalue the use of 4*s. While not an ideal solution it's a valid suggestion from a player who will be minimally if at all effected by the 4* ban
Hang on, that's two different things. You said "The official 'answer' is that 4* champions would not be able to take on Act 6 because they are too weak." That's false: they didn't say that. They did say that allowing 4* champs in Act 6 could lead to frustration, but that doesn't mean there's anything explicitly wrong with 4* champs. Rather, that means all players are different, and for many players attempting to use 4* champs could lead to frustration.That's not debatable, that's undeniably true. We already see this now: there's lots of players who have expressed frustration over the difficulty of Uncollected monthly events, and the logic is often words to the effect of "they are uncollected, so uncollected should be something they should be able to do." Becoming uncollected is the prerequisite for doing uncollected difficulty, but many players who can't do uncollected difficulty believe that the problem is with the content if they are uncollected, because the prerequisite was met to do it. They may have never actually said 4* were too weak but it definitely was implied. What other reason could you have to say they would cause frustration ? Don't quote my posts if you're not going to read them. 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" It is undeniably true that allowing players into high difficulty content above their skill level relative to their roster strength could lead to frustration, because we have multiple examples of this already happening, which I stated in the post you quoted but did not read. I don't have to speak for everyone to say something could happen: a single example of it actually happening is enough to prove that it could happen. Which is the normal, ordinary meaning of these words.
Hang on, that's two different things. You said "The official 'answer' is that 4* champions would not be able to take on Act 6 because they are too weak." That's false: they didn't say that. They did say that allowing 4* champs in Act 6 could lead to frustration, but that doesn't mean there's anything explicitly wrong with 4* champs. Rather, that means all players are different, and for many players attempting to use 4* champs could lead to frustration.That's not debatable, that's undeniably true. We already see this now: there's lots of players who have expressed frustration over the difficulty of Uncollected monthly events, and the logic is often words to the effect of "they are uncollected, so uncollected should be something they should be able to do." Becoming uncollected is the prerequisite for doing uncollected difficulty, but many players who can't do uncollected difficulty believe that the problem is with the content if they are uncollected, because the prerequisite was met to do it. They may have never actually said 4* were too weak but it definitely was implied. What other reason could you have to say they would cause frustration ?
Hang on, that's two different things. You said "The official 'answer' is that 4* champions would not be able to take on Act 6 because they are too weak." That's false: they didn't say that. They did say that allowing 4* champs in Act 6 could lead to frustration, but that doesn't mean there's anything explicitly wrong with 4* champs. Rather, that means all players are different, and for many players attempting to use 4* champs could lead to frustration.That's not debatable, that's undeniably true. We already see this now: there's lots of players who have expressed frustration over the difficulty of Uncollected monthly events, and the logic is often words to the effect of "they are uncollected, so uncollected should be something they should be able to do." Becoming uncollected is the prerequisite for doing uncollected difficulty, but many players who can't do uncollected difficulty believe that the problem is with the content if they are uncollected, because the prerequisite was met to do it.
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"
They did say that allowing 4* champs in Act 6 could lead to frustration, but that doesn't mean there's anything explicitly wrong with 4* champs. Rather, that means all players are different, and for many players attempting to use 4* champs could lead to frustration.That's not debatable, that's undeniably true. We already see this now: there's lots of players who have expressed frustration over the difficulty of Uncollected monthly events, and the logic is often words to the effect of "they are uncollected, so uncollected should be something they should be able to do." Becoming uncollected is the prerequisite for doing uncollected difficulty, but many players who can't do uncollected difficulty believe that the problem is with the content if they are uncollected, because the prerequisite was met to do it.
This thought process is completely wrong, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause problems for the game that would be magically solved if the players who aren't ready for Uncollected were somehow barred from even attempting it. Of course, that's not practical: there's no way to know in advance if someone can or can't do it.Kabam isn't saying you personally won't be able to do Act 6 with 4* champs. They are saying that the percentage of people who can among all players who will try is low enough to be a problem. In and of itself that isn't the justification for the progress gate, but it is a legitimate factor in favor of it.
Maybe instead of a 4* Ban, there could be a global node that auto kills 4*. Would solve the synergy problem while still maintaining Kabams goal. An alternative would be having a Chapter (or Act) Global Node that gives a passive 50% Weakness on the Attacker and +100% Champion Boost for the Defender if anything below a 5* is used.This keeps 4*s still relevant, addresses Kabam’s goal on having roster exploration by discouraging (but not eliminating the use of 4*s), allows very skilled players to still use their rosters, and bring lower rarity champions along for synergies. At the end of the day, having the “choice” to bring a champ that people have ranked is important to them. Personally not a fan of that idea. Why reduce the effectiveness of a 4* when, I believe, they’re already up against that challenger rating or whatever it’s called. It would still allow synergies while at the same time allow kabam to devalue the use of 4*s. While not an ideal solution it's a valid suggestion from a player who will be minimally if at all effected by the 4* ban So we have a compromise. 😂😂(Yeah the ban doesn’t affect me one bit tbh.)
Maybe instead of a 4* Ban, there could be a global node that auto kills 4*. Would solve the synergy problem while still maintaining Kabams goal. An alternative would be having a Chapter (or Act) Global Node that gives a passive 50% Weakness on the Attacker and +100% Champion Boost for the Defender if anything below a 5* is used.This keeps 4*s still relevant, addresses Kabam’s goal on having roster exploration by discouraging (but not eliminating the use of 4*s), allows very skilled players to still use their rosters, and bring lower rarity champions along for synergies. At the end of the day, having the “choice” to bring a champ that people have ranked is important to them. Personally not a fan of that idea. Why reduce the effectiveness of a 4* when, I believe, they’re already up against that challenger rating or whatever it’s called. It would still allow synergies while at the same time allow kabam to devalue the use of 4*s. While not an ideal solution it's a valid suggestion from a player who will be minimally if at all effected by the 4* ban So we have a compromise. 😂😂(Yeah the ban doesn’t affect me one bit tbh.) It doesn't really affect me either and I am only opposed to it because of how the spring it on the community. I'd like to see kabam look at these compromises. I understand the frustration of the lower tier rosters
off topic, but if Face Me counters No Retreat, among other things, why doesn't it counter Coldsnap?
Act 6 will be here in a few hours. Until then I will grind the arena, work on content I need to work through. I'm level 58 and still need to clear Classic and Variant, as well as Act 4(I've only 100% Chapter 1, done 1 run through all of Chapter 2, gone through 1 run of the first three quests of Chapter 3.), RTTL, LOL, and of course Act 5. I know a lot of people on here have completed this, but I have taken time off various times and currently my 5* roster is small (4 5*s) and no 6*s. Still I'm excited about Act 6.
Act 6 will be here in a few hours. Until then I will grind the arena, work on content I need to work through. I'm level 58 and still need to clear Classic and Variant, as well as Act 4(I've only 100% Chapter 1, done 1 run through all of Chapter 2, gone through 1 run of the first three quests of Chapter 3.), RTTL, LOL, and of course Act 5. I know a lot of people on here have completed this, but I have taken time off various times and currently my 5* roster is small (4 5*s) and no 6*s. Still I'm excited about Act 6. Variant was a nice roster boost for me the rank up gems really came in handy for me. That and Act 5 completion have the best rewards in my opinion. Plus the 2015 rank up gems did not cost gold so that was a nice added bonus. Strangely you needed the gold in your account but it did not use it. Anyway good luck man hope you get some good pulls and see ya in act 6 soon!
Can i have some 4* rank down tickets?
Can i have some 4* rank down tickets? who would you rank down?
Can i have some 4* rank down tickets? who would you rank down? Whoever’s not useful for act 6