**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
But that means this question is also easy. You make the map have easy, harder, and super hard paths at release, and see how the players do. Having multiple path difficulties means you'll get a better idea where the players fall, and that data can be used to tweak difficulty over time. You also provide a mini-progress path where players can start by only being able to do initial completion, and can work towards full exploration.
In my opinion this is something that doesn't currently exist to quite the same degree in lower difficulty tiers. Whether you run the easy path or the hard path, in my opinion most of the difficulty in master and uncollected is in the final boss. But I felt that Act 6.1 was different: the difficulty was more balanced between paths and bosses, so it was more meaningful to be able to do the easy path and then kill the boss, compared to doing the hard path and killing the boss: the boss wasn't the primary decider of whether you could finish the map much of the time.
I think Cav difficulty, if it gets introduced, should be more like that. Instead of 90% of the difficulty concentrated in the boss and 10% in the paths which makes the distinction between easy path and hard path almost meaningless, it should be more like 50% in the boss and 50% in the paths, so it is possible to finish the easy path and complete the map even if it is too difficult to complete the hard paths and get full exploration.
Incidentally, I should point out that I would, if it was my job to design this, front load Cav rewards more in completion than exploration. The highest difficulty paths should be hard enough so as to challenge the highest players, but we can't make the rewards for that highest difficulty proportionately higher because then the very top of the playerbase can exponentially run away from everyone else progressionally. I think that's always a bad idea: past a certain point you have to either have diminishing reward returns, or you're going to be sorry down the road when you've bifurcated your playerbase in a way you can't fix.
You don't get to decide how available the top tier stuff is. You maybe get to decide how fast it becomes obsolete as top tier stuff, and prompt the addition of higher, more expensive, even harder to get stuff. Radically increasing the availability of 6* shards and T5B simply moves forward the date when 7* champs and T6B arrive in the game, even rarer, even more expensive.
This is so obvious, so absolutely predictable for progressional games that I predicted it would happen when Kabam started radically increasing the availability of T4CC, and again when they did the same thing with 5* shards. And it rather amazes me when people are surprised when the next tier arrives to make the current top tier stuff obsolete as top tier stuff. One day we will be earning stuff as fast as your post implies. That day is probably a year or two away. Doing it now means we get two years less to build and use rosters at their current levels, and we get to watch the whales shoot past everyone else with 7* champs.
That's assuming the game survived that level of reward inflation. Not all games do.