**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
It is probably because that rule doesn't exist. First of all, any gate that restricts options will, practically by definition, "force" players to use champions other than what they would have used if they had unlimited choice. Otherwise, the gate is completely invisible and doing nothing. So it will always force players to choose what they believe are suboptimal options.
However, if the objection is very specific to the issue of bringing in a lower tier version of the exact same champion, any game can eliminate that objection by simply not making the same champion at more than one tier. They could avoid that entirely, or they could ensure that champions of different tiers were reskinned variations that were not identical. But any game design rule that was that superficially trivial to avoid is almost certainly not a reasonable game design rule. Rather, it is someone's personal preference disguised as a game design rule.
Gates should be a MINIMUM (Read 5 or 6*)requirement, not a strictly defined requirement if you're going to double-gate. Double gating is just sneaky and transparent as to WHY it's done.
The act already takes away our 4* and below so good-bye synergy only champs, but the gates are basically saying 5* only when they also negate the use of 6*.
Hopefully, all the critics here can agree that it is terrible design for a "game."
I've mentioned a number of times before that progress gates separate Players based on progress. Those that meet the requirements may pass. It's my view that this is all building up to the release of 6* R3s. Speculatively, they want the Resources to do so released into Rosters that are far enough along that the effects of adding them won't create issues or imbalances in the overall system.
They're pretty clear, and while we may or may not like them, it looks like we will have to use what's required either way.
I'm not saying you'll like it or anyone else in particular, but I'm quite certain I have a significant number of end game players intrigued. If the rest of the content is designed in such a way to use the restrictions well, taking things away isn't bad design, it can be the foundation of very good design. And in fact in every online MMO-style game I've played, there has always been high end or end game content that at least situationally limited what you could bring. It is a valid tool to implement high end challenges.
Also, the gates aren't saying 5* only. They are saying you have to include a certain number of them. They don't prevent you from using 6* champs. So beyond the fact that restrictions aren't automatically bad design, the current gate restrictions aren't restricting what you can bring, they only mandate some number of things you have to bring as a prerequisite. That's not the same thing.
Also the gate requirements absolutely do restrict what you can bring. If you can only bring say 4 5* Mystic and you want to have 2 synergies for one champ with other classes, sorry for ya, or even if it's same class but 6* instead.
As an aside being called amusing and sad is a prerequisite for working on online games. If this is something that's intolerable for someone, I'd recommend accounting as a profession instead. You will never be called amusing, at least.