Witness the Great Revival! Act 6 Chapter 1 - Coming March 13th

BORN AGAIN
Carina has awoken. For ages she’s been trapped in her crystal prison, but with the support of Ægon, The Collector finally has his daughter back, but she’s not interested in standing still. Keen to find her place in The Battlerealm, Carina begins to understand her power and explore the fringes of the unknown, but Carina’s rebirth has reminded the Elders that the scars of their past have yet to fully heal. Taneleer Tivan and En Dwi Gast must jockey for Carina’s attention as they both attempt to mold her into the Elder they think she ought to be. Unfortunately for the both of them, Carina is as rebellious as she is powerful, and her defiant nature might just prove too much for the old Elders to handle…

Join Carina, Ægon, The Collector, and The Grandmaster when the final episode in the Elder Saga begins in ACT 6: REBIRTH!

RELEASE + LEGENDS
Act 6 Chapter 1: Great Revival releases on MARCH 13TH for all who have completed Act 5: ELDER’S WAR to enjoy.

Alongside this release, we’re happy to announce a Legends Run for Chapter 1! This Legends run will begin the moment you start Act 6 Chapter 1, and end the moment you 100% explore all Quests in the Chapter. You’ll have until April 13th at 10:00:00 AM PDT to log a time. The rewards for the Legends run of Act 6 Chapter 1 are:

Rank 1-5
10x Tier 5 Class Catalyst Fragment Crystals (2% each of a random Tier 5 Class Catalyst)
22,500x Tier 5 Basic Catalyst Fragments
2x Tier 2 Alpha Catalysts

Rank 6-100
5x Tier 5 Class Catalyst Fragment Crystals (2% each of a random Tier 5 Class Catalyst)
11,250x Tier 5 Basic Catalyst Fragments
1x Tier 2 Alpha Catalysts

In a new turn of events, we’ll also be featuring a Legends Run for all Chapters of Act 6, and a special Act Legends Reward throughout the release of Act 6! The top times for each Chapter’s Legends will be collected, and awarded with a new 6-Star Champion never before owned by any Summoner!

In order to win the Act Legends Reward, you’ll need to place in the top times of each Chapter, as follows:

Chapter 1 - Top 20 Times
Chapter 2 - Top 40 Times
Chapter 3 - Top 60 Times
Chapter 4 - Top 100 Times

If you happen to qualify for all 4 Chapters, you’ll receive the Champion 4 times, meaning you can Awaken them this way! We will have more to reveal about each Chapter’s and the Act Legends rewards in the future, but that’s all we have for you for now.

CHAMPION REQUIREMENTS
Act 6 is some of the most challenging content to date, and the perils within require only the strongest Champions of The Contest. Chapter 1 will contain CHAMPION REQUIREMENTS that will restrict the Champions you use to ONLY 5 and 6-Star Champions.

BUFFS
There are 7 new buffs making an appearance in Act 6 Chapter 1. Each Quest features one or more of these Buffs as Global effects, so you’ll need to bring your best. See below for each Buff and a little description of our intentions with it.

NO RETREAT! - When the Attacker dashes back, they gain Degen Timer for 1.2 seconds. Dashing back again while the Degen Timer is active causes a Passive Degen, dealing 200% of the Defender's Attack as direct damage over 6 seconds.
This Buff is meant to impose the mentality of its title: Do not retreat. While other similar Buffs like Caltrops can be easily countered with an Immunity, No Retreat requires careful planning and execution on playstyle to overcome. No Retreat was designed to be possible - but challenging - to avoid.

Special Delivery - The Attacker begins the fight with 15 Combo charges. Each landed basic attack decreases the Combo charges by 1, and launching a Special Attack will reset the charges. If all charges are removed, they are reset, and the Attacker suffers a Passive Degen equal to 100% of the Defender's Attack Rating over 4 seconds.
Similar to fighting Thor Ragnarok, this Buff will require you to make sure you have a Special Attack at the ready, but there are sure to be challenges to that strategy strewn throughout…

Combo Party - For every 10 hits of the Combo Meter, the Attacker gains a permanent Cruelty Buff, granting +500 Crit Damage Rating. When struck, the Attacker loses all Cruelty Buffs if their combo meter is lost and takes 40% of the Defender's attack as direct damage for each Buff removed this way.
This buff is generally quite simple, and is intended to create a “ride the line” feeling - you want to get your combo count up, but losing it will cost you dearly.

Long Distance Relationship - While close to the Defender, the Attacker gains a Weakness Debuff every 3 seconds, reducing their attack by 10% permanently. Staying far away from the Defender causes these Weakness effects to fall off.
The goal here is to encourage you to find “openings” to deal as much damage as possible. Waste those openings, or just spend too long near the opponent, and you’ll need to back off in order to gain your damage back. If you’re pinned in a corner, you’ll want to use your abilities to create some space and start dealing damage again.

Close Encounters - While close to the Defender the Attacker Regenerates 1% of their Max Health every second. While far away from the Defender, the Attack Degenerates 3% of their Max Health every second.
Sort of the inverse of Long Distance Relationship, Close Encounters encourages you to stay as close to the Defender as possible, and being efficient as you bait specials or get out of the way of abilities that could cause trouble up close (like Mephisto or Omega Red).

Power Struggle - The Attacker cannot gain Power during the fight through normal means. Each time the Defender reaches a full bar of Power, the Attacker is granted one as well and whenever the Defender launches a Special Attack, the Attacker loses an equal amount of Power.
This one is all about a “use it or lose it” mentality - you’ll want to make sure you’re keeping an eye on your Opponent’s power and how it relates to your own. Characters who can control power using their specials, like Vision or Magik, will excel here.

Hurt Locker - Using the same type of Special Attack twice in a row gives the Attacker a Delayed Blast charge for 5 seconds which may be removed by landing a Heavy Attack. If the Blast expires, the Attacker takes 50% of their Health as direct damage.
This one is (as the name might suggest) focused on creating a “bomb defusal” moment while you play. If you make a mistake, you’ll have a small window to correct it before your mistake comes back to bite you. Rest assured there will be challenges that will threaten to trip you up…

PI RANGES
Keep in mind these are approximate - there is some variation around the values but in general, this is what you can expect:

Quest 1
Paths: ~22,500-28,000 PI
Boss: ~ 55,000 PI
Quest 2
Paths: ~23,000-30,500 PI
Boss: ~ 58,500 PI
Quest 3
Paths: ~23,500-30,500 PI
Boss: ~ 50,000 PI
Quest 4
Paths: ~23,500-35,500 PI
Boss: ~ 54,000 PI
Quest 5
Paths: ~27,000-31,000 PI
Boss: ~ 66,000 PI
Quest 6
Paths: ~28,000-39,000 PI
Boss: ~ 72,000 PI

ENERGY/PATHS
In general, quests in Chapter 1 have a consistent energy requirement the whole way through. On average, All quests in Chapter 1 will have:

3 Energy Per Step
~ 9-10 paths
~ 600 Energy for Quest Mastery

REWARDS
Of course, we know that any announcement of new Story content wouldn’t be complete without some nice rewards for your efforts. Here’s what you can expect:

Quest 1 - 6 (Completion + Exploration)

30x 5-Star Signature Stone Crystals
180,000x Gold
63,000x Tier 2 Alpha Catalyst Fragments
50x Units

Chapter 1 Completion
9,000x Tier 5 Basic Fragments
2,000x 6-Star Shards
5,000x 5-Star Shards
1x 5-Star Rank up Gem Crystal (2-3)
1x Tier 4 Basic Catalyst
1x Tier 4 Class Catalyst Crystal
500,000x Gold

Chapter 1 Mastery
1x Tier 5 Class Catalyst Fragment Crystal (25%)
1x 5-Star Rank up Gem Crystal (3-4)
Tier 5 Basic Catalyst
4,000x 6-Star Shards
8,000x 5-Star Shards
3x Tier 4 Basic Catalysts
3x Tier 4 Class Catalyst Crystals
1,000,000x Gold

Chapter Total (all of the above)

1x Tier 5 Class Catalyst Fragment Crystal (25%) (Note: This is a Special Crystal, and not the regular Tier 5 Class Catalyst Fragment Crystal)
1x 5-Star Rank up Gem Crystal (2-3)
1x 5-Star Rank up Gem Crystal (3-4)
13,000x 5-Star Shards
30x 5-Star Signature Stone Crystals
6,000x 6-Star Shards
1,680,000x Gold
63,000x Tier 2 Alpha Catalyst Fragments
4x Tier 4 Basic Catalysts
4x Tier 4 Class Catalyst Crystals
1x Tier 5 Basic Catalysts
9,000 Tier 5 Basic Catalyst Fragments
540x Units

BECOME A CAVALIER
A new Act, a new Progression point! Summoners that complete Act 6 Chapter 1 will gain the new designation of “Cavalier”!

This designation is not as game changing as Uncollected, and is a step up similar in scope to becoming Contender, Proven or Conqueror.

Cavaliers will have access to a brand new Cavalier Crystal that guarantees at least a 3-Star Champion with a 38% chance at a 4-Star Champion, an 11% chance at a 5-Star Champions, and a rare 1% chance of a 6 Star Champion! These Crystals will be available for 200 units each.

Cavaliers will also have access to:

- A 25 Unit Discount on Grandmaster Crystals
- A new Cavalier Calendar in place of the Grandmaster Calendar that will grant a Grandmaster Crystal over 7 days, instead of 14
- An upgraded Daily Crystal that contains a rare chance of T5B Fragments, 5-Star Shards, or 6-Star Shards, and double the amount of - T2A Fragments, T4CC Fragments, and T4B Fragments!
- A slightly upgraded Free (4-hour) Crystal with more Gold!

This is the next step after becoming Uncollected, and we plan to continue to add more as the Story progresses!

Comments

xNig

xNig thanks for confirming

Welcome.

I saw some live streams and yea, the addition of the timer to No Retreat made 6.1.1 very much easier.

Crossbones is still a pain to fight though. 😂

Scottryan

Quest 6.1.3 looks weird. could one of the mods check it? I was told you would need 10 paths for each quest but that one looks like it can be done in 4 based on the way the paths go

DNA3000

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

🤔🤔🤔
@Busa_6 Off topic, but you’re now the point man to post that pic of the Kabam CEO interview every time someone says logging in for the calendar is just a big nothing. He thinks our time is worth something even if his customers don’t.

Dr. Zola
That's twisting people's words. I think my customers' time is valuable, but I also don't pay them anything for it. If a customer of mine said they read an interview where I said my customer's time was valuable, so they demanded I compensate them for it, I'd kick them out of my office with my actual feet.
Obviously, I disagree that it twists anything, and I think someone who views one minute of his customers’ time as vitally important disagrees with you as well.

But I give you points for your most succinct post in ages.

Dr. Zola
Fortunately for me, I can literally turn to another business owner visiting me right now and ask the two part question: do you think your customers' time is valuable, and do you think they deserve to be compensated for any time they spend during your interactions.

The answer to the first question is yes. I can't transcribe the entire answer to the second question. It started with "say what?' and then it was a lot of weird sounds while I tried to elaborate. But I think the gist of the answer is "no." So while I think "someone" might agree with you here, it wouldn't be this particular someone.
Facetiously asking the wrong question is cute, but misses the point.

Why don’t you ask him/her if it’s better to have his customers using and thinking about his/her product or something else? I’m pretty sure the answer isn’t “something else.”

Someone seems to think he is competing for “share of mind,” and that having more “share of mind” will translate into more “share of wallet.” I don’t think that’s a tricky thing to understand.

Dr. Zola

I would agree that's the wrong question, that's the point. Quoting someone that says words to the effect of "my customer's time is valuable" to support the notion that things like calendar rewards are in some way compensating for login time is totally wrong.

I don't disagree with the CEO's words. I disagree with attempting to use those words to mean anything except what they mean. The value of a customer's time is, at least for a company like Kabam, that you're competing for mindshare. The customer's time is valuable to *them*, and you're trying to get them to spend it on *you*. But the customer's time is not valuable in the sense that you owe them something for their time. That's completely different.

If you want to use the quote to support the notion that MCOC should be as entertaining as possible, you'll get no argument from me. If you try to use it to argue against the notion that the company doesn't specifically owe customers any compensation for the time they spend, that's when I'll point out that's completely ridiculous.

I consider my customer's time value, in the sense that I don't want to waste it. But the time they spend on the business activities they buy from me as a customer is not time that they deserve any compensation for. They pay for my time. I don't pay for theirs.

DNA3000

If i have misunderstood or misread what you have put in your post, then please elaborate and point me in the right direction.

Sure. You said this:

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 ?

But you actually quoted this:

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.

The very post you quote literally contains the answer to the question "what other reason could you have" which I've bolded for emphasis. Are 4* champs too weak to run Uncollected? No, they are not. Lots of people use them. Does using them or lower rosters in general in Uncollected cause frustration? Yes, we absolutely know that's true, because actual players express actual frustration about the content being too strong for their rosters. The same statement is almost certainly true of Act 6's difficulty, only to a higher degree. Whether this is something you allow or not is a judgment call for a designer.

Your original statement said that "MANY" players attempting act 6 with 4* "COULD" have frustrations and that was "UNDENIABLY" true. This is not a matter of fact and is simply your opinion. Act 6 is not out so this is all hypothetical.

Except any reasonable person would assume that Act 6 would have more difficulty than Uncollected, which we already know with certainty suffers from this situation. Also, I don't have to assume, as I beta tested the content.

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.
Here you say on the one hand you can't know in advance if players can do content or not and its impractical to do that and then on the other hand you're saying kabam know that only a small percentage of players can do the content with 4* and thus that's one of the factors for this gating. Well unless you work for kabam then you don't know what they are "saying" by this gate anymore then the rest of the community. Also you are contradicting yourself here.

How is it a contradiction to say that I cannot know, for any particular person, whether content will be difficult, but I can know with reasonable certainty that the content will be difficult for a large number of players. We already *know* with absolute certainty that Uncollected is "difficult" for most players because most players cannot even *become* Uncollected: that level of difficulty is either too difficult to do directly or too difficult to even do the earlier prerequisite content for. If you want to debate the notion that technically we don't have the numbers to prove that, say, more than 50% of the player population isn't already Uncollected, go find someone else to debate that.

Kobster84

I’ve just started had very little trouble until I came to the 6:1:2 boss and realized I have 0 5* counters

BowTieJohn

We're only 34 minutes away, but if you haven't already seen it, Dragonfei and Royal wrote up an in depth list of Champions and Nodes that you can expect to see in Act 6 Ch1 Quest 1! Check it out here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KQixOYjMC7uwc_r33lfXG7T9eWiJIIy83EelFGcT4Zg/edit?usp=sharing

Thank you!

BowTieJohn

@Kabam Miike any update on who the 6* champ awarded to top 20 legends will be?
We're not quite ready to reveal that just yet. We have a pretty good idea, but need to make sure it's 100% doable before we can announce anything.
Not tested? Can’t say I’m surprised
To be honest, Maestro was confirmed to be a playable champion in the future. It might be that champion

That would be cool, but then I sadly realize if it was I wouldn't be able to get that champion. Still wish I could Thanos or Kang, but I realize they are items awarded based on doing a particular event, etc.

DrZola

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

🤔🤔🤔
@Busa_6 Off topic, but you’re now the point man to post that pic of the Kabam CEO interview every time someone says logging in for the calendar is just a big nothing. He thinks our time is worth something even if his customers don’t.

Dr. Zola
That's twisting people's words. I think my customers' time is valuable, but I also don't pay them anything for it. If a customer of mine said they read an interview where I said my customer's time was valuable, so they demanded I compensate them for it, I'd kick them out of my office with my actual feet.
Obviously, I disagree that it twists anything, and I think someone who views one minute of his customers’ time as vitally important disagrees with you as well.

But I give you points for your most succinct post in ages.

Dr. Zola
Fortunately for me, I can literally turn to another business owner visiting me right now and ask the two part question: do you think your customers' time is valuable, and do you think they deserve to be compensated for any time they spend during your interactions.

The answer to the first question is yes. I can't transcribe the entire answer to the second question. It started with "say what?' and then it was a lot of weird sounds while I tried to elaborate. But I think the gist of the answer is "no." So while I think "someone" might agree with you here, it wouldn't be this particular someone.
Facetiously asking the wrong question is cute, but misses the point.

Why don’t you ask him/her if it’s better to have his customers using and thinking about his/her product or something else? I’m pretty sure the answer isn’t “something else.”

Someone seems to think he is competing for “share of mind,” and that having more “share of mind” will translate into more “share of wallet.” I don’t think that’s a tricky thing to understand.

Dr. Zola
I would agree that's the wrong question, that's the point. Quoting someone that says words to the effect of "my customer's time is valuable" to support the notion that things like calendar rewards are in some way compensating for login time is totally wrong.

I don't disagree with the CEO's words. I disagree with attempting to use those words to mean anything except what they mean. The value of a customer's time is, at least for a company like Kabam, that you're competing for mindshare. The customer's time is valuable to *them*, and you're trying to get them to spend it on *you*. But the customer's time is not valuable in the sense that you owe them something for their time. That's completely different.

If you want to use the quote to support the notion that MCOC should be as entertaining as possible, you'll get no argument from me. If you try to use it to argue against the notion that the company doesn't specifically owe customers any compensation for the time they spend, that's when I'll point out that's completely ridiculous.

I consider my customer's time value, in the sense that I don't want to waste it. But the time they spend on the business activities they buy from me as a customer is not time that they deserve any compensation for. They pay for my time. I don't pay for theirs.

This strict interpretation is what I would expect from certain business perspectives: “But the customer's time is not valuable in the sense that you owe them something for their time.”

I don’t know your particular product offerings, and I wouldn’t assume to know your business. But someone competing for attention rather than selling a discrete product might beg to differ.

Dr. Zola

rk9HULK_

Just completed 3 first quests of chapter 1. And after thinking about it, I feel it's a fun content. The new nodes are fun, a little bit irritating, but interesting at the same time. Didn't felt that no 4* allowed was that much of a pain, but I didnt completed it fully yet, so maybe my opinion will change. But what are your opinions?

DNA3000

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

🤔🤔🤔
@Busa_6 Off topic, but you’re now the point man to post that pic of the Kabam CEO interview every time someone says logging in for the calendar is just a big nothing. He thinks our time is worth something even if his customers don’t.

Dr. Zola
That's twisting people's words. I think my customers' time is valuable, but I also don't pay them anything for it. If a customer of mine said they read an interview where I said my customer's time was valuable, so they demanded I compensate them for it, I'd kick them out of my office with my actual feet.
Obviously, I disagree that it twists anything, and I think someone who views one minute of his customers’ time as vitally important disagrees with you as well.

But I give you points for your most succinct post in ages.

Dr. Zola
Fortunately for me, I can literally turn to another business owner visiting me right now and ask the two part question: do you think your customers' time is valuable, and do you think they deserve to be compensated for any time they spend during your interactions.

The answer to the first question is yes. I can't transcribe the entire answer to the second question. It started with "say what?' and then it was a lot of weird sounds while I tried to elaborate. But I think the gist of the answer is "no." So while I think "someone" might agree with you here, it wouldn't be this particular someone.
Facetiously asking the wrong question is cute, but misses the point.

Why don’t you ask him/her if it’s better to have his customers using and thinking about his/her product or something else? I’m pretty sure the answer isn’t “something else.”

Someone seems to think he is competing for “share of mind,” and that having more “share of mind” will translate into more “share of wallet.” I don’t think that’s a tricky thing to understand.

Dr. Zola
I would agree that's the wrong question, that's the point. Quoting someone that says words to the effect of "my customer's time is valuable" to support the notion that things like calendar rewards are in some way compensating for login time is totally wrong.

I don't disagree with the CEO's words. I disagree with attempting to use those words to mean anything except what they mean. The value of a customer's time is, at least for a company like Kabam, that you're competing for mindshare. The customer's time is valuable to *them*, and you're trying to get them to spend it on *you*. But the customer's time is not valuable in the sense that you owe them something for their time. That's completely different.

If you want to use the quote to support the notion that MCOC should be as entertaining as possible, you'll get no argument from me. If you try to use it to argue against the notion that the company doesn't specifically owe customers any compensation for the time they spend, that's when I'll point out that's completely ridiculous.

I consider my customer's time value, in the sense that I don't want to waste it. But the time they spend on the business activities they buy from me as a customer is not time that they deserve any compensation for. They pay for my time. I don't pay for theirs.
This strict interpretation is what I would expect from certain business perspectives: “But the customer's time is not valuable in the sense that you owe them something for their time.”

It is a strict interpretation, only insofar as it is limited to all the industries I'm aware of on Earth. In particular, it applies to the games industry where in spite of your attempts to show otherwise, game companies do not in general believe they owe material compensation to game players for their time. They owe them a game for their time, something the CEO you reference explicitly emphasizes.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Bidzy7

If i have misunderstood or misread what you have put in your post, then please elaborate and point me in the right direction.
Sure. You said this:
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 ?
But you actually quoted this:
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.
The very post you quote literally contains the answer to the question "what other reason could you have" which I've bolded for emphasis. Are 4* champs too weak to run Uncollected? No, they are not. Lots of people use them. Does using them or lower rosters in general in Uncollected cause frustration? Yes, we absolutely know that's true, because actual players express actual frustration about the content being too strong for their rosters. The same statement is almost certainly true of Act 6's difficulty, only to a higher degree. Whether this is something you allow or not is a judgment call for a designer.
Your original statement said that "MANY" players attempting act 6 with 4* "COULD" have frustrations and that was "UNDENIABLY" true. This is not a matter of fact and is simply your opinion. Act 6 is not out so this is all hypothetical.
Except any reasonable person would assume that Act 6 would have more difficulty than Uncollected, which we already know with certainty suffers from this situation. Also, I don't have to assume, as I beta tested the content.

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.
Here you say on the one hand you can't know in advance if players can do content or not and its impractical to do that and then on the other hand you're saying kabam know that only a small percentage of players can do the content with 4* and thus that's one of the factors for this gating. Well unless you work for kabam then you don't know what they are "saying" by this gate anymore then the rest of the community. Also you are contradicting yourself here.
How is it a contradiction to say that I cannot know, for any particular person, whether content will be difficult, but I can know with reasonable certainty that the content will be difficult for a large number of players. We already *know* with absolute certainty that Uncollected is "difficult" for most players because most players cannot even *become* Uncollected: that level of difficulty is either too difficult to do directly or too difficult to even do the earlier prerequisite content for. If you want to debate the notion that technically we don't have the numbers to prove that, say, more than 50% of the player population isn't already Uncollected, go find someone else to debate that.

The thing you have bolded refers to skill and is not specific to 4* champions. If you are not skilled enough then you use a better often stronger choice of champion.
Your second point also states the content being too strong for their rosters. i.e. their champions aren't strong enough to take on the content.

We know Act 6 has more difficulty, that's a given. My argument isn't to do with it not being difficult but the so called frustrations we are being saved from by restricting 4* are not specific to only 4* and the only reason you would get frustrated by using a 4* is because they are not strong enough for the content. Hence why i listed as many reasons as i could think of at the time of what people find frustrating.

If anything this restriction has caused more frustration then any that would of been bought about by using 4* in Act 6, which you can see from the majority of the negativity from the announcement.

The contradiction lies in the fact you are saying its impractical to stop people from attempting difficult content because you don't know if they are capable of doing it. Then you say Kabam doing the same thing by restricting 4* is ok.

All this mention of people having problems with UC EQ etc are kinda irrelevant as i'm pretty sure those are not in a position to take on Act 6 anyway. Anyone who has 100% Act 5 doesn't have a problem with the the monthly EQ and its pretty routine.

Being on the beta test , did you not see the potential for using 4* for certain match ups ? or was your roster able to effectively handle all the nodes and matchups ?

DNA3000

The thing you have bolded refers to skill and is not specific to 4* champions. If you are not skilled enough then you use a better often stronger choice of champion.

I'm not sure how to even respond to this. You keep saying the only possible reason why players might get frustrated using 4* champs is because the 4* champs themselves are too weak. I keep saying that's not true, that the problem isn't with the 4* champs, it is that different players themselves might not be able to complete the content with 4* champs and that could lead to frustration for some players. And when I specifically point to the quote that says "it isn't about 4* champs, it is about the players" you tell me that what I pointed out is about skill and not about 4* champs.

Right. Exactly right.

Being on the beta test , did you not see the potential for using 4* for certain match ups ? or was your roster able to effectively handle all the nodes and matchups ?

My feedback relevant to this issue was that I was fine with the limitation personally, because to me a limitation is just something to work towards overcoming whether I could do it or not. But I thought it would be a controversial limitation, and it had a possibly unintended side effect regarding synergies.

On the subject of whether I could do the content reasonably or not, I thought it was just barely within my limits to attempt, but I ran into a bug that limited the amount I could test. Even with that limitation, I was able to reach almost every boss on every map through what I thought was the easiest path, and I was able to bring them down on two of the maps.

FYI, the limitation I ran into was that I couldn't really use a lot of potions. You were supposed to be able to buy potions specifically for use in the test, but something caused my game to stop selling them to me, so I had to test much of Act 6 in hardcore mode.

I am far from the best player in the world, but I suspect my roster is better than average, even among higher tier players with the skill to attempt Act 6. Again, not the best, but certainly not bad. But I would consider myself a roster-building focused player.

DNA3000

The contradiction lies in the fact you are saying its impractical to stop people from attempting difficult content because you don't know if they are capable of doing it. Then you say Kabam doing the same thing by restricting 4* is ok.

I never said that, or anything like that. I said that when you allow players to attempt content without restrictions, some of them will attempt it and fail and get frustrated. Some of that is inevitable, but when it rises to certain extreme levels it is a legitimate motive to reduce the scope of that problem by placing restrictions on who can do the content. That's a general principle not specific to Act 6. Anyone arguing the general point that such restrictions are always wrong because players should be allowed attempt anything they want, and be free to succeed or fail, is ignoring the problem of managing frustration in an online game and I would disagree with that notion in principle.

Beyond that, I said that restricting rosters in the way that Kabam is doing isn't unreasonable for a long list of reasons not worth repeating here, but that I don't think it is the optimal way to do that. Which means I wouldn't do it myself, but I don't think it's a completely awful idea either. There's what I would do, there's what I would find completely unacceptable, and there's the vast majority of possibilities that lie in the middle. The Act 6 restriction falls in the middle for me.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Kobster84

Ok so.

Just quickly popping in here to share a few things.

1- 4* ban is cheap and nasty as hell, a sleazy back handed slap in the face of we’ll all summoners not just the mid tier players.
2 - nodes you have showed to be in act 6 so far are fairly specific and less we forget there are path nodes + global + many of newer champions require specific matchups - that filters out 95%+ champions in game - like let’s say caustic temper - need poision immune with fury - realistically people only have ranked up medusa and or hype or
Maybe ghost that can deal with that - narrowing it down to 3-4 champions in game that are not absolute trash for all other scenarios - it is stupid as hell if only 5* or 6* are allowed as statistically it is likely many summoners don’t have any of those.
3 - preview of 1.1 means absolutely squat when it comes to rest of the content (can’t compare 5.2.1 to 5.2.6 in difficulty)

On my channel I posted few ideas how to rectify this for Kabam,

Main one - release in game * boost* that increases 4* champion level by 1 for set amount of time - sprinkle them throughout 6.1 and perhaps store (for some gold and with daily limit )

And this whole issue goes away - 4* still banned but if we really need some utility of synergy champions we have acces to them.

End of story.

Laters

https://youtu.be/9XCo1PDcs-A
1. It's not a slap in the face to all Summoners. It's a degree of challenge, one that shouldn't even pertain to mid-level Players yet. It affects everyone who hasn't done it, of course. Everyone is free to discuss it. However, it's certainly not a slap in the face to them. Quite contrary. They're getting a head start before they get there.
2. There are most likely a number of options, which is one of the purposes of releasing content to the CCs, so they can explore it and share their ideas and thoughts on how to get through it. It may however, require people to explore Champs not commonly used. That's not a bad thing. It's very limiting to play one way ad infinitum.
3. It pertains to 6.1. The rest of the Chapter is nowhere near ready to be released.
Just saying some of the fights definitely require specific counters such as a cable fight in 6:1:1

Ok so.

Just quickly popping in here to share a few things.

1- 4* ban is cheap and nasty as hell, a sleazy back handed slap in the face of we’ll all summoners not just the mid tier players.
2 - nodes you have showed to be in act 6 so far are fairly specific and less we forget there are path nodes + global + many of newer champions require specific matchups - that filters out 95%+ champions in game - like let’s say caustic temper - need poision immune with fury - realistically people only have ranked up medusa and or hype or
Maybe ghost that can deal with that - narrowing it down to 3-4 champions in game that are not absolute trash for all other scenarios - it is stupid as hell if only 5* or 6* are allowed as statistically it is likely many summoners don’t have any of those.
3 - preview of 1.1 means absolutely squat when it comes to rest of the content (can’t compare 5.2.1 to 5.2.6 in difficulty)

On my channel I posted few ideas how to rectify this for Kabam,

Main one - release in game * boost* that increases 4* champion level by 1 for set amount of time - sprinkle them throughout 6.1 and perhaps store (for some gold and with daily limit )

And this whole issue goes away - 4* still banned but if we really need some utility of synergy champions we have acces to them.

End of story.

Laters

https://youtu.be/9XCo1PDcs-A
1. It's not a slap in the face to all Summoners. It's a degree of challenge, one that shouldn't even pertain to mid-level Players yet. It affects everyone who hasn't done it, of course. Everyone is free to discuss it. However, it's certainly not a slap in the face to them. Quite contrary. They're getting a head start before they get there.
2. There are most likely a number of options, which is one of the purposes of releasing content to the CCs, so they can explore it and share their ideas and thoughts on how to get through it. It may however, require people to explore Champs not commonly used. That's not a bad thing. It's very limiting to play one way ad infinitum.
3. It pertains to 6.1. The rest of the Chapter is nowhere near ready to be released.
Just saying some of the fights definitely require specific counters such as a cable fight in 6:1:1

Ok so.

Just quickly popping in here to share a few things.

1- 4* ban is cheap and nasty as hell, a sleazy back handed slap in the face of we’ll all summoners not just the mid tier players.
2 - nodes you have showed to be in act 6 so far are fairly specific and less we forget there are path nodes + global + many of newer champions require specific matchups - that filters out 95%+ champions in game - like let’s say caustic temper - need poision immune with fury - realistically people only have ranked up medusa and or hype or
Maybe ghost that can deal with that - narrowing it down to 3-4 champions in game that are not absolute trash for all other scenarios - it is stupid as hell if only 5* or 6* are allowed as statistically it is likely many summoners don’t have any of those.
3 - preview of 1.1 means absolutely squat when it comes to rest of the content (can’t compare 5.2.1 to 5.2.6 in difficulty)

On my channel I posted few ideas how to rectify this for Kabam,

Main one - release in game * boost* that increases 4* champion level by 1 for set amount of time - sprinkle them throughout 6.1 and perhaps store (for some gold and with daily limit )

And this whole issue goes away - 4* still banned but if we really need some utility of synergy champions we have acces to them.

End of story.

Laters

https://youtu.be/9XCo1PDcs-A
1. It's not a slap in the face to all Summoners. It's a degree of challenge, one that shouldn't even pertain to mid-level Players yet. It affects everyone who hasn't done it, of course. Everyone is free to discuss it. However, it's certainly not a slap in the face to them. Quite contrary. They're getting a head start before they get there.
2. There are most likely a number of options, which is one of the purposes of releasing content to the CCs, so they can explore it and share their ideas and thoughts on how to get through it. It may however, require people to explore Champs not commonly used. That's not a bad thing. It's very limiting to play one way ad infinitum.
3. It pertains to 6.1. The rest of the Chapter is nowhere near ready to be released.
Just saying some of the fights definitely require specific counters such as a cable fight in 6:1:1
There are BEST options, that's pretty much the same as any content. There are always other options.
Not really the cable has a very specific nodes that if you don’t have vision or magik it’s going to be a horrible fight
So Power Control? There's more than two, isn't there?

It requires the best power controllers as eventually the other ones won’t be able to keep up

Not really the cable has a very specific nodes that if you don’t have vision or magik it’s going to be a horrible fight
Based on the Reddit writeup Dormamu will be best for that fight. Magik may be the next best option. Other options include:

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.

It’s not a power gain buff so void like cage and modok are all instantly removed as options same with cap iw doctor voodoo would work for the first but if the fight but it’d eventually not work spidergwen could work but don’t forget she only enervates blocks still give him power and his power gain buffs and pyslock

It’s not a power gain buff so void like cage and modok are all instantly removed as options same with cap iw doctor voodoo would work for the first but if the fight but it’d eventually not work spidergwen could work but don’t forget she only enervates blocks still give him power and his power gain buffs and pyslocke wouldn’t work well
@Kobster84 You overlooked my response to @Drooped2's comment. Duped Cable has a % chance to gain an active power gain buff each time he fills a bar of power. Void Luke Cage MODOK and Cap IW are able to reverse active power gain buffs, so power gain buffs with increased power gain rate would mean increased power lost. Power gain rate is less of a factor for Doctor Voodoo's power burn as long as power burn drains any power, 100% power minus any amount of power greater than 0% means sp2 instead of sp3. Voodoo also has power drain to manage that Cable fight. Spider-Gwen might work for that fight if she can enervate after her sp1 and keep Cable cornered like Magik does to solo war bosses. Psylocke will work for that fight if she can drain Cable's power to 0 on her sp1, all that would take is baiting Cable's sp1 or sp2 early on when Cable doesn't have an active power gain buff.

@DTMelodicMetal this cable has extinction protocol and kinetic transference 3 meaning block his sp1 will basically give him more power

MaatMan

These buffs won’t apply until we become cavalier? Because if I read it correctly it should be applied now not later
I’m not sure why it appears after 6.1.1 but that’s just the uncollected stuff. Pretty silly to show anyone working on act 6 that grandmaster crystals are now unlocked.

it was addded in the last update.
it appears the first time you complete any story quest since the last update
to show wat you are currently atr.

Bidzy7

The thing you have bolded refers to skill and is not specific to 4* champions. If you are not skilled enough then you use a better often stronger choice of champion.
I'm not sure how to even respond to this. You keep saying the only possible reason why players might get frustrated using 4* champs is because the 4* champs themselves are too weak. I keep saying that's not true, that the problem isn't with the 4* champs, it is that different players themselves might not be able to complete the content with 4* champs and that could lead to frustration for some players. And when I specifically point to the quote that says "it isn't about 4* champs, it is about the players" you tell me that what I pointed out is about skill and not about 4* champs.

The whole discussion is centered around the ban on 4* and the reasoning behind it. Kabam's response was gating is used to to avoid a frustrating experience for the players. Another user had said this meant they were saying gating was done because 4* were perceived as too weak. You said this wasn't the case, which i challenged to say what other reason is there that is specific to 4* that would be inline with their statement on the restrictions ?

If this still doesn't make sense, then no point going any further as we seem to be just going in circles and at the end of the day its not like its going to have any significant impact on anything.

So wait did you get to test multiple maps ? I thought only 6.1.1 was tested.

How does you roster look can i ask ? who are your top ranked champions ?

IKON

Finished 6.1, got 9 Cavalier crystals, added 6* phoenix. The 6* floodgates are opening, and I'm glad those without a solid 5* roster can't get them yet.

Frunzaiute

I thought that act 6 should give you better rewards but...doing 1 run in act 5.4 has better rewards than 6.1 and come on its act 6 and with restrictions too

DNA3000

How does you roster look can i ask ? who are your top ranked champions ?

5/65: Void, Blade
4/55: VIsion, Emma, Korg, Sparky, Archangel, Iceman, Magik
3/45: Mordo, Guillotine, Voodoo, Goblin, Hyperion, King Groot, Nightcrawler, Angela, Hood, Drax, Captain Marvel, She-Hulk, Spider-Gwen, Star-Lord

1/25 6*: Loki, Sabretooth, IMIW, Hulk Ragnarok, Sentry, Nebula, Captain America WWII

LeNoirFaineant

The thing you have bolded refers to skill and is not specific to 4* champions. If you are not skilled enough then you use a better often stronger choice of champion.
I'm not sure how to even respond to this. You keep saying the only possible reason why players might get frustrated using 4* champs is because the 4* champs themselves are too weak. I keep saying that's not true, that the problem isn't with the 4* champs, it is that different players themselves might not be able to complete the content with 4* champs and that could lead to frustration for some players. And when I specifically point to the quote that says "it isn't about 4* champs, it is about the players" you tell me that what I pointed out is about skill and not about 4* champs.

The whole discussion is centered around the ban on 4* and the reasoning behind it. Kabam's response was gating is used to to avoid a frustrating experience for the players. Another user had said this meant they were saying gating was done because 4* were perceived as too weak. You said this wasn't the case, which i challenged to say what other reason is there that is specific to 4* that would be inline with their statement on the restrictions ?

If this still doesn't make sense, then no point going any further as we seem to be just going in circles and at the end of the day its not like its going to have any significant impact on anything.

So wait did you get to test multiple maps ? I thought only 6.1.1 was tested.

How does you roster look can i ask ? who are your top ranked champions ?

It wasn't that 4*s are too weak. It was that many players with less developed rosters who rely on 4*s won't be able to do it and it could be a very frustrating experience for them. Blocking 4*s was a way of keeping out players more likely to be in the frustrated category.

redm4n

Let the player choose if it is more then they want to handle, stop taking the choice away from them and force them behind a wall of RNG.

Bidzy7

How does you roster look can i ask ? who are your top ranked champions ?
5/65: Void, Blade
4/55: VIsion, Emma, Korg, Sparky, Archangel, Iceman, Magik
3/45: Mordo, Guillotine, Voodoo, Goblin, Hyperion, King Groot, Nightcrawler, Angela, Hood, Drax, Captain Marvel, She-Hulk, Spider-Gwen, Star-Lord

1/25 6*: Loki, Sabretooth, IMIW, Hulk Ragnarok, Sentry, Nebula, Captain America WWII

well dam that is a stacked roster. You pretty much cover most scenarios. are you f2p ?

Have you done all the content in the game like LOL and variant ?

A bit surprising you only have 2 5/65 , i'm assuming you are saving up to rank someone you feel worthy

Bidzy7

The thing you have bolded refers to skill and is not specific to 4* champions. If you are not skilled enough then you use a better often stronger choice of champion.
I'm not sure how to even respond to this. You keep saying the only possible reason why players might get frustrated using 4* champs is because the 4* champs themselves are too weak. I keep saying that's not true, that the problem isn't with the 4* champs, it is that different players themselves might not be able to complete the content with 4* champs and that could lead to frustration for some players. And when I specifically point to the quote that says "it isn't about 4* champs, it is about the players" you tell me that what I pointed out is about skill and not about 4* champs.

The whole discussion is centered around the ban on 4* and the reasoning behind it. Kabam's response was gating is used to to avoid a frustrating experience for the players. Another user had said this meant they were saying gating was done because 4* were perceived as too weak. You said this wasn't the case, which i challenged to say what other reason is there that is specific to 4* that would be inline with their statement on the restrictions ?

If this still doesn't make sense, then no point going any further as we seem to be just going in circles and at the end of the day its not like its going to have any significant impact on anything.

So wait did you get to test multiple maps ? I thought only 6.1.1 was tested.

How does you roster look can i ask ? who are your top ranked champions ?

It wasn't that 4*s are too weak. It was that many players with less developed rosters who rely on 4*s won't be able to do it and it could be a very frustrating experience for them. Blocking 4*s was a way of keeping out players more likely to be in the frustrated category.

This is what makes it seem like a pay to play wall, because if you are in a position where you can't buy crystals and get bad luck then you got no alternative apart from grinding away, getting your 2 5* a month and praying for good luck or buying more crystals.

LeNoirFaineant

The thing you have bolded refers to skill and is not specific to 4* champions. If you are not skilled enough then you use a better often stronger choice of champion.
I'm not sure how to even respond to this. You keep saying the only possible reason why players might get frustrated using 4* champs is because the 4* champs themselves are too weak. I keep saying that's not true, that the problem isn't with the 4* champs, it is that different players themselves might not be able to complete the content with 4* champs and that could lead to frustration for some players. And when I specifically point to the quote that says "it isn't about 4* champs, it is about the players" you tell me that what I pointed out is about skill and not about 4* champs.

The whole discussion is centered around the ban on 4* and the reasoning behind it. Kabam's response was gating is used to to avoid a frustrating experience for the players. Another user had said this meant they were saying gating was done because 4* were perceived as too weak. You said this wasn't the case, which i challenged to say what other reason is there that is specific to 4* that would be inline with their statement on the restrictions ?

If this still doesn't make sense, then no point going any further as we seem to be just going in circles and at the end of the day its not like its going to have any significant impact on anything.

So wait did you get to test multiple maps ? I thought only 6.1.1 was tested.

How does you roster look can i ask ? who are your top ranked champions ?

It wasn't that 4*s are too weak. It was that many players with less developed rosters who rely on 4*s won't be able to do it and it could be a very frustrating experience for them. Blocking 4*s was a way of keeping out players more likely to be in the frustrated category.

This is what makes it seem like a pay to play wall, because if you are in a position where you can't buy crystals and get bad luck then you got no alternative apart from grinding away, getting your 2 5* a month and praying for good luck or buying more crystals.

I don't think it was intended to be a pay to play wall, but it does screw people with bad RNG and it certainly is a massive advantage for people who spend a ton on FGM and get every new champ. I don't spend and I have the roster for it, so it doesn't really hurt me. I wish they had been more creative and found a way to block people who shouldn't be doing it while not making it more expensive for people who should but don't have 5* versions of synergy champs that won't be used to fight anyway.

xNig

Awfully silent here.

A little too much over-reaction in the first place? 😂😂

mum_m2

Once I saw how easy it was it really is an over reaction I think. There's one fight that's super hard and the rest is extremely manageable

DarthHaas

finished (completion) with a couple boosts, a couple energy refills, and 12 single revives
Domino 6* rank 2
CapIW 5/65
Sentinel 4/55
Sparky 4/55
Gulk 6* rank 1

Deffinetly not that bad of content. I will say I will have to expand my roster a bit before I go for exploration.