Act 6 Chapter 2 Gates - Why do 6* not count towards 5* requirement?

DNA3000 · June 2019

Ultra8529 said:
I think that is the gripe over this design. When a gate prevents you from bringing in a 6* as a substitute for a 5*, that is poor game design since it is giving you two poor choices: (1) go in with a weaker champ than one you currently have (ie, your 5* instead of the 6* you have), or (2) waste resources ranking that 5* to a r4 minimum so that it is on par with the 6* (which you already have and therefore makes that rank up a waste of resources).

That page of the game design handbook seems to be missing in my copy.

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.

DalBot · June 2019

Never ceases to amaze me how the same people will defend Kabams flawed logic each and every time. It's one thing to gate based on class OR on rarity, but to gate both and say that higher rarity isn't allowed is nothing more than a resource (read units read cash)grab. Considering how much outrage there was over no 4*s allowed, doing this is either completely tone deaf to the community or just a flat out "screw you, pay me" play.

GroundedWisdom · June 2019

DalBot said:
Never ceases to amaze me how the same people will defend Kabams flawed logic each and every time. It's one thing to gate based on class OR on rarity, but to gate both and say that higher rarity isn't allowed is nothing more than a resource (read units read cash)grab. Considering how much outrage there was over no 4*s allowed, doing this is either completely tone deaf to the community or just a flat out "screw you, pay me" play.

It can also be a lack of following instructions. If the requirement is one thing, and people expect to bring another, that's not the fault of the game. What's needed is clearly stated. Not 4 5/6*s. 4 5*s. In order to pass the gate, you need what's required. It's a very specific requirement that has a purpose. While people may not like it, it's not reasonable to try and substitute and wonder why it's not workable.

DalBot · June 2019

GroundedWisdom said:

It can also be a lack of following instructions. If the requirement is one thing, and people expect to bring another, that's not the fault of the game. What's needed is clearly stated. Not 4 5/6*s. 4 5*s. In order to pass the gate, you need what's required. It's a very specific requirement that has a purpose. While people may not like it, it's not reasonable to try and substitute and wonder why it's not workable.

We get THAT the limitations exist. Nobody is disputing that they do. What people are against is WHY there are double gates to begin with. Even the elite summoners of the game really don't have the 5* rosters to have 4 of each class of 5* that are actually useable (read not complete wet noodles)for these kind of champs. An R4 5* is kind of the bare mininum to be usable for the majority of 6.2. A 6* R1 is the equivalent but we are told they can't be used because, well, reasons.

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.

ContestChamp · June 2019

GroundedWisdom said:
The answer is actually quite simple. The requirement is a certain number of 5*s, of a particular Class. That's what's required. Not the equivalent in a higher Rarity. Different Rarities altogether. It's not really about money, or any other implication similar. You can't fit a square peg into a round hole. (Unless said square peg is much smaller than said hole but....)

WOW!!! This has gotten silly. Obviously we all know that 5 <> 6 so telling people the obvious is a waste of your keystrokes. If you want to use your above analogy, the question becomes why is the hole round?

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."

ContestChamp · June 2019

The design change would be easy to implement. Just change the gates to class restriction. 4* and below are already prevented into the Act.

GroundedWisdom · June 2019

ContestChamp said:

GroundedWisdom said:
The answer is actually quite simple. The requirement is a certain number of 5*s, of a particular Class. That's what's required. Not the equivalent in a higher Rarity. Different Rarities altogether. It's not really about money, or any other implication similar. You can't fit a square peg into a round hole. (Unless said square peg is much smaller than said hole but....)
WOW!!! This has gotten silly. Obviously we all know that 5 <> 6 so telling people the obvious is a waste of your keystrokes. If you want to use your above analogy, the question becomes why is the hole round?

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."

If there's anything I can gather, it's that these requirements are not negotiable. That's not really meant to discourage people from commenting their views, just to say that it doesn't seem like a subject where it's a joint decision.
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.

DNA3000 · June 2019

DalBot said:
Never ceases to amaze me how the same people will defend Kabams flawed logic each and every time.

It has ceased to amaze me long ago that game players will assume their personal preferences define what good game design is. Or how people are comfortable making statements with no validity. In this case, no one is defending Kabam's "flawed logic" because Kabam has not presented a logical argument for the existence of the gates. Kabam did not, and has no obligation to logically prove the gates must exist. They can no more do that than you can logically prove you need to post.

GroundedWisdom · June 2019

Mcord117 said:
but the issue is that it will actually only get into the hands of people who's roster is not only at a good state of development but also has had a good deal of luck. Listen, I don't think my roster is deep enough, I am at 65 5* and 8 6*. I only have 3 rank 5 (resources for 2 more just no worthy options). I am at peace with that now, was angry at first, I get it this content is not for me. These gates and restrictions though do not just block people who have smaller rosters, they will block people with huge rosters as well that just haven't gotten lucky. Now unitman can always fix this, which appears to be the true intent.

With the exception of specific counters for Fights, they're not really so much based on luck. Other than having a certain number of Classes. Which will happen organically with enough pulls. Ergo, sufficient growth. So far, it's 5/6*s only, certain number of 6*s, certain number of 5*s of a certain Class.

DNA3000 · June 2019

ContestChamp said:

GroundedWisdom said:
The answer is actually quite simple. The requirement is a certain number of 5*s, of a particular Class. That's what's required. Not the equivalent in a higher Rarity. Different Rarities altogether. It's not really about money, or any other implication similar. You can't fit a square peg into a round hole. (Unless said square peg is much smaller than said hole but....)
WOW!!! This has gotten silly. Obviously we all know that 5 <> 6 so telling people the obvious is a waste of your keystrokes. If you want to use your above analogy, the question becomes why is the hole round?

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."

Nope, and I can even prove it by proposing a design that takes even more away. Hypothetically speaking, I can suggest an end game Act 6 map in which you can use any champion on your team in the first path you run regardless of which path that is, but the second path eliminates your ability to use 6* champions, the third eliminates your ability to use 5* champions also, and so on until the fifth (and final) path requires you to only use 2* champs.

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.

DalBot · June 2019

DNA3000 said:

Nope, and I can even prove it by proposing a design that takes even more away. Hypothetically speaking, I can suggest an end game Act 6 map in which you can use any champion on your team in the first path you run regardless of which path that is, but the second path eliminates your ability to use 6* champions, the third eliminates your ability to use 5* champions also, and so on until the fifth (and final) path requires you to only use 2* champs.

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.

Your logic goes completely out the window when you consider that the double-gated lines in this content are no less challenging that any other line. In your scenario the line that would require 2* only would have to include significantly weakers champs than the 6*/5* lines just due to the fact that 2*s would insta-die on the first parry and wouldn't do more than double digit damage to a beefed up 6*.

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.

ContestChamp · June 2019

Are people serious or just playing devil's advocate here? Hard to tell, but it is amusing and or sad.

DNA3000 · June 2019

DalBot said:

DNA3000 said:

Nope, and I can even prove it by proposing a design that takes even more away. Hypothetically speaking, I can suggest an end game Act 6 map in which you can use any champion on your team in the first path you run regardless of which path that is, but the second path eliminates your ability to use 6* champions, the third eliminates your ability to use 5* champions also, and so on until the fifth (and final) path requires you to only use 2* champs.

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.
Your logic goes completely out the window when you consider that the double-gated lines in this content are no less challenging that any other line.

My particular logic does not require that prerequisite to be valid. My particular logic does not reference or rely on the specifics of the implementation of Act 6.2. I was addressing the idea that restricting who you could bring was automatically bad design. Talking about the specifics of Act 6.2 only cloud the issue because you can't prove that statement true or false outside of all the other details in 6.2. Maybe the problem isn't the restrictions, but the content that uses them in a particular way. That would imply the fix is to address the content particulars, not the restrictions.

DNA3000 · June 2019

ContestChamp said:
Are people serious or just playing devil's advocate here? Hard to tell, but it is amusing and or sad.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm pretty serious. I'm applying my experience working on MMO design, and it is the same design sensibility I would apply if I was designing content for this game.

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.

Msyounus1288 · June 2019

I’m pretty sure you won’t see R3 6*s without having act 6 100% so saying that people will just bring in r3 6*s to plow through those paths is idiotic. This is referring to the class gates in 6.2 they’re not 5* gates you just need a certain amount of champs of the specific class to run these paths considering act 6 is already limited to 5 and 6*s it doesn’t make sense for 6*s to not count towards class specific gates.

ContestChamp · July 2019

Can we get a response from Kabam? I would really like to know the reason behind the gate design.

Snizzbar · July 2019

V1PER1987 said:

DNA3000 said:

V1PER1987 said:
Lol I like how people are disagreeing with my comment because they don’t understand 6 =/= 5. It’s just a way to restrict power beyond those paths. A year down the line it’ll be a lot easier to plow through those paths with 6* R3 and R4 than 5* R3-5. That’s probably why.
I don't think that is the reason, or those paths wouldn't have a minimum prerequisite, they'd have a lock. In other words, you're required to bring some 5* champs, but you aren't limited to *only* bringing 5* champs. A hard limit would limit power for the future, but a minimum prereq doesn't really.

The reason is almost certainly the obvious, which is that the gates force players to build more diverse rosters. People keep tacking things onto the end like "to force people to spend" or whatever, but in this case this is likely an end, not a means to an end. The game's progress is focused in large part on roster development which is two-dimensional: you can grow roster wider and you can grow it "taller" via rank ups. A lot of players believe the "correct" way to play the game is to focus on taller to the point of ignoring wider. Find "the best" champs and rank them up as high as possible, and then use them to take on everything. The structure of the game - which started out extremely simple - allowed for that. The game is placing gates like this to increase the need to go wider as much as taller, so the roster structure is more pyramid and less tower. The game has been moving in that direction since 12.0.

It is a completely arbitrary requirement, but only in the sense that all the "winners" of the roster lottery also won under purely arbitrary rules. There's no reason why champs like Corvus or Ghost won the beyond-god-tier lottery except purely by the coincidence of the game's current requirements. Forcing players to possess some number of 5* or 6* or specific class champions is no less, and also no more arbitrary than needing the highest burst damage or the anything else.
You gotta start making tl;dr sentences at the end or be more succinct. I can’t read multiple paragraphs every single time on every comment of mine that you respond to.

There is a TL;DR setting in your profile that I've found useful for all DNA's posts:

Act 6 Chapter 2 Gates - Why do 6* not count towards 5* requirement?

Comments