Sinister labs WAY overpowered
Derp_Jaxon
Member Posts: 1 ★
This event is way overpowered in relation to the payoff. We really need to collect all of these buffs and items for a pitiful handful of shards???KABAM’D once again. Greediest game developers I’ve ever seen.
Anyone else agree?
Anyone else agree?
13
Comments
That's pretty greedy. If only this was a subscription game and not a microtransaction game. Then it would be impossible to spend past content, and people who couldn't complete the content couldn't claim Kabam was greedy, they'd just have to admit the game was too difficult for them and not do difficulty tiers too high for them. They'd have to just fail, with no way around it.
Whether the difficulty is appropriate or too high, it can't be "greedy" unless you spend, and spending is voluntary. It only seems mandatory if you think you deserve more than your gameplay can earn.
Attached one instance. And this wasn’t even Epic Difficulty.
So with that I bid my a-due to Sinister labs.
Some people just expect to steamroll anything that offers shards.
And also yep, not gonna rage against this BS anymore, and I'll also ignore it for the rest of the month. I'll just take this opportunity to get rid of the randomizers that were in my inventory since last year, at least there's that positive !
I'd imagine it to be down significantly from last month.
And when people are spending less time on the game, that can't be good for the game.
The Event with the Human Torch was funny and really good. Something like that should have been done with Warlock or Sunspot.
🐻
So far I managed to complete epic only once. I don't have any good mutant 5 or 6 champs so what I am doing is I enter, check champs and nodes and if they are doable I play, if no I quit and try again.
I never liked the lab premise since first modok labs.
That being said, it's not the difficulty that's my biggest problem. Like said above, it's the amount of work for the amount of rewards. On epic, to complete, it's 10 fights - and not easy fights. You want to max out the amt of 5* shards you get, you have to do master to - that's 20 fights total then. That's a lot for a pretty poor reward payout.
And since it's an event quest, you can't hit that whenever. You need to make sure you're done with whatever quest you're in first.
Then there's all the dice in overflow that's going to go to waste. (I stopped claiming those rewards, but still wasted a ton of dice)
The difficulty wouldn't be a problem if it was well thought out otherwise. But it's really not
I would suggest always bringing a bleed immune, poison immune, power controller, a void if you have him and just need to dance around something but still do damage and the 5th can be whatever you want.
Something I've been doing is bringing a ramp up champ as my 5th (Cap Marvel, Aegon, MS, etc) in the scenario the first 1-2 matchups are favorable and then that champ just wrecks the rest.
In the above scenario you only have to really reroll on micro reflect or maybe slashed tires/thorns. Sure there is probably some other crazy combos I'm not thinking of but if you can limit what you need to reroll on you have a really good shot at completing.
3 node buffs instead of 6 means easier to reroll. Lot more buffs combi that work in your favor - my favourite was fighting a sym Supreme with 200% power gain for both champs, and both dash and bleed vulnerability. My 4* blade reached SP2 in 10 hits and KOed him. Then there’s heal reversal with 1% perma regen. Theres also the option to exit and re-enter if you see a korg or something, or go the other path if that’s your first attempt. I stocked up on randomizers everyday (u get 16 max per day), so I can reroll. But I generally have not used more than 8 rerolls (or any revives) per Epic path.
My roster after trying out a few days which worked well for me: 5* Ghulk, CapIW, starky and 4* blade and iceman.
Kabam needs to assign "power" ratings to buffs/debuffs. So that when you re-roll, the outcome must be within a certain range, i.e. you couldn't get the worst 3, nor the easiest 3 nodes. That would lend some consistency to it, while still making it random.
Suppose you wanted to provide bonus rewards for players that were more skilled than average. You could make a map for the "standard" difficulty which has rewards, and then a higher difficulty map. Let's say the more difficult map is twice as difficult. Should it have twice the rewards?
Actually no. If it did, then it doesn't actually reward higher skill, it encourages people to spend to complete the content. For content to be worth doing, the amount of rewards relative to the difficulty should be high enough. That's subjective, but we can say for every player there's a ratio reward/difficulty which has to be higher than some threshold, or players will likely not do it. The higher the rewards, the higher the ratio and the more worth it the content is. But also, the more skilled the player the lower the perceived difficulty, and the more worth it the content is for the same rewards.
What do you do if the reward/difficulty ratio is high enough that it meets the threshold for doing it, but the perceived difficulty is too high? For a lot of players, it is spend to complete. It is worth it, but it is too difficult, so there is a strong incentive to spend. Some players even say they are "forced" to spend because the content is too rewarding to pass up.
What if we keep rewards constant and just make the map more difficult? Then the ratio of rewards/difficulty drops. But the more skilled the player is, the higher that ratio seems, and the more likely it is to still be worth it.
So if we increase both rewards and difficulty, we force players to spend to complete content perceived to be too good to pass up. But if we increase difficulty and leave rewards constant then as difficulty gets higher some players decide it is not worth it and drop out. The higher the difficulty gets, the higher the players' skill has to be to keep going before they drop out. So this does a better job of rewarding skill (I'm leaving out the complication of progressing roster strength, which gets overlayed on top of this for simplicity).
This could also explain why it is random. Suppose that Epic had constant difficulty and no randomizers. Let's say the difficulty is 90 out of 100. Any player who could do level 90 content or higher would get all the rewards, while a player who couldn't would get none of the rewards: it is all or nothing. Instead, the random nature of the maps combined with the fact that there are so many shots at pieces of the total rewards (one per day) means players experience a range of difficulty from, say, 70 to 110. Now, players that can do level 90 maps will sometimes see difficulty too high, where without randomness they would have always succeeded. But now the players who can do level 80 difficulty *sometimes* make it and *sometimes* fail. They get some of the rewards, but not all. It isn't all or nothing anymore.
TL;DR:
The fact that the difficulty is higher than you would expect for the rewards means players with higher skill will find the rewards more attractive than those with less skill or would have to normally spend through the map - the rewards are the same for both, but the "cost" for getting them is different. And the fact the maps are random in difficulty means players in a wide range of skill will be able to get at least partial rewards because the difficulty they see will be, because of random chance, different every day, making the rewards not all or nothing.
Those are two things I think the game should have more of in general, actually.
Then the next nodes all have vulnerabilities or life transfer.
Aug. 27th can't come fast enough.