AQ potions are too expensive (for one very specific reason)
DNA3000
Member, Guardian Guardian › Posts: 19,422 Guardian
AQ potions are too expensive for one very specific reason: they force AQ to be boring.
I'm going to use my own alliance's values for example purposes, but I believe these calculations capture the essence of the problem across a wide range of alliances. Let's look at the AQ health potions you can buy for glory:
L3 health 6000, 160 glory
L4 health 9500, 260 glory
The best value is the L4 which offers 9500 health (to one champ) for 260 glory, which is 118.75 health per glory. How much glory do I earn per AQ week? Right now, it is 3850 for reaching milestone 30 (3000 glory) and rank 3864 (850 glory). Not the greatest, but not bad: its what we get for running 6/4/2 across three battlegroups. Certainly, it is better than average (rank 3864 probably places us in the top 10% of all alliances that do AQ).
If you were to spend all of that glory efficiently on AQ health potions, that is 770 per AQ day (3850/5) which translates to 91438 health restored per day. This assumes you don't ever die and need to use a revive, by the way. What does that mean in actual combat terms? Well, at the moment our prestige is about 10k, and on Map 6 we're facing attackers with attack values between 7k and 9k (generally in the vicinity of 8k, with some champion variability and scaling upward over the days). In rough terms, the typical attacker without significant fury, armor break, penetration, or any of that other jazz will be landing blocked hits on the order of 900 damage. I can sustain over a hundred such hits. That doesn't seem bad.
But I might be doing fifteen fights or more in one AQ day. Completely setting aside minibosses and boss fights, my AQ glory potion budget of 100 blocked hits amounts to about six per fight. Six.
Now of course, I don't necessarily have to heal that all back. I don't have to end AQ with all three champs at full health. But remember this is my potion budget if I never die. Dying tacks on more expense. I have to be careful not to let health get too far down. And this assumes I make basically zero mistakes (assuming you don't count taking a blocked hit to be a "mistake"). Any mistake at all blows these numbers up completely. Taking a single combo from an attack can easily cost 10-15k of health or more without criting. Many attackers can deal double or triple that amount. One combo can erase half your entire healing budget for the day.
And all of this assumes you spend *all* your glory on health potions, which is not a reasonable cost. That would make doing AQ almost pointless. In practice, averaging more than half your glory on potions is economically unsound.
Okay, but the logical thing to do is to not run maps where you are spending too much glory. That's always been the theory. And that is a valid option. However, look at the numbers again. *Any* map in which you are taking *any* risk at all is going to blow your glory budget. The only way AQ makes sense from an economic perspective is if you're spending only a small fraction of your glory on potions. And that can only happen if the challenge level is so low that it is almost impossible to make a mistake, because you're so powerful the fights are over before you *can* make a mistake. Or if the health pools of your attackers is so huge compared to the AQ defenders that the damage you take can be safely ignored (and does not need to be healed at all). If AQ is challenging, it is too expensive.
Which means the cost of AQ potions forces AQ to be boring. The cost of AQ potions logically compels players to avoid paying it, which can only happen if they are completely overpowering the AQ map. For AQ to be remotely interesting, it must be at least minimally challenging. And that means players must occasionally get hit. But AQ potion costs compared to glory rewards tell the players that if you're taking more than minimal damage, you shouldn't be doing it, and we're going to penalize you with high potions costs until you step down.
Basically, AQ potion costs tell players if AQ looks interesting, it isn't for you. And that tells me that AQ potion costs are *objectively* broken. It isn't a subjective matter of what I think they should cost. It doesn't matter what I think. The numbers say the cost of taking damage is too high for players to expose themselves to taking significant damage. But it is impossible for AQ to be either interesting or challenging if players never take significant amounts of damage.
And that's broken.
What should be done about it? Well, at the moment AQ potions are priced on the assumption that using *any* of them means you screwed up and should pay. But I believe that is an unrealistic target. If we want AQ to present some minimum level of challenge, we need to figure out how much damage we expect players to take on average when sustaining that level of challenge. We should *expect* some small level of "mistakes" and allow players to buy that many potions at a steep discount. All potions above that should then scale upward in price. That way, players see the game "push back" if they try to potion their way through AQ. A mistake won't cost a lot. Two might cost something. Three and you're no longer in mistake territory, you're just outmatched: time to consider stepping down.
That sort of feedback makes more sense to me, and it encourages players to do what Kabam claims they want to encourage: players should step up to higher maps when they think they can move up to them. But the current potion costs tell players not to do that until they are overwhelmingly certain they can do so easily. Stretching to move up is cost prohibitive.
I haven't thought about this long enough to say what the precise numbers should be. Some of that would depend on how the numbers shift around for different alliances doing different maps at different glory budgets. But I definitely think AQ potions should start off much cheaper than they are now, and should be much more available. They can ramp up to the costs they are now. Heck, I don't mind if they eventually ramp up to even higher costs. But the first one shouldn't cost what they cost. Not if the intent is for AQ to be anything other than a sleep walk. Because sleep walks are the only affordable AQ right now.
I'm going to use my own alliance's values for example purposes, but I believe these calculations capture the essence of the problem across a wide range of alliances. Let's look at the AQ health potions you can buy for glory:
L3 health 6000, 160 glory
L4 health 9500, 260 glory
The best value is the L4 which offers 9500 health (to one champ) for 260 glory, which is 118.75 health per glory. How much glory do I earn per AQ week? Right now, it is 3850 for reaching milestone 30 (3000 glory) and rank 3864 (850 glory). Not the greatest, but not bad: its what we get for running 6/4/2 across three battlegroups. Certainly, it is better than average (rank 3864 probably places us in the top 10% of all alliances that do AQ).
If you were to spend all of that glory efficiently on AQ health potions, that is 770 per AQ day (3850/5) which translates to 91438 health restored per day. This assumes you don't ever die and need to use a revive, by the way. What does that mean in actual combat terms? Well, at the moment our prestige is about 10k, and on Map 6 we're facing attackers with attack values between 7k and 9k (generally in the vicinity of 8k, with some champion variability and scaling upward over the days). In rough terms, the typical attacker without significant fury, armor break, penetration, or any of that other jazz will be landing blocked hits on the order of 900 damage. I can sustain over a hundred such hits. That doesn't seem bad.
But I might be doing fifteen fights or more in one AQ day. Completely setting aside minibosses and boss fights, my AQ glory potion budget of 100 blocked hits amounts to about six per fight. Six.
Now of course, I don't necessarily have to heal that all back. I don't have to end AQ with all three champs at full health. But remember this is my potion budget if I never die. Dying tacks on more expense. I have to be careful not to let health get too far down. And this assumes I make basically zero mistakes (assuming you don't count taking a blocked hit to be a "mistake"). Any mistake at all blows these numbers up completely. Taking a single combo from an attack can easily cost 10-15k of health or more without criting. Many attackers can deal double or triple that amount. One combo can erase half your entire healing budget for the day.
And all of this assumes you spend *all* your glory on health potions, which is not a reasonable cost. That would make doing AQ almost pointless. In practice, averaging more than half your glory on potions is economically unsound.
Okay, but the logical thing to do is to not run maps where you are spending too much glory. That's always been the theory. And that is a valid option. However, look at the numbers again. *Any* map in which you are taking *any* risk at all is going to blow your glory budget. The only way AQ makes sense from an economic perspective is if you're spending only a small fraction of your glory on potions. And that can only happen if the challenge level is so low that it is almost impossible to make a mistake, because you're so powerful the fights are over before you *can* make a mistake. Or if the health pools of your attackers is so huge compared to the AQ defenders that the damage you take can be safely ignored (and does not need to be healed at all). If AQ is challenging, it is too expensive.
Which means the cost of AQ potions forces AQ to be boring. The cost of AQ potions logically compels players to avoid paying it, which can only happen if they are completely overpowering the AQ map. For AQ to be remotely interesting, it must be at least minimally challenging. And that means players must occasionally get hit. But AQ potion costs compared to glory rewards tell the players that if you're taking more than minimal damage, you shouldn't be doing it, and we're going to penalize you with high potions costs until you step down.
Basically, AQ potion costs tell players if AQ looks interesting, it isn't for you. And that tells me that AQ potion costs are *objectively* broken. It isn't a subjective matter of what I think they should cost. It doesn't matter what I think. The numbers say the cost of taking damage is too high for players to expose themselves to taking significant damage. But it is impossible for AQ to be either interesting or challenging if players never take significant amounts of damage.
And that's broken.
What should be done about it? Well, at the moment AQ potions are priced on the assumption that using *any* of them means you screwed up and should pay. But I believe that is an unrealistic target. If we want AQ to present some minimum level of challenge, we need to figure out how much damage we expect players to take on average when sustaining that level of challenge. We should *expect* some small level of "mistakes" and allow players to buy that many potions at a steep discount. All potions above that should then scale upward in price. That way, players see the game "push back" if they try to potion their way through AQ. A mistake won't cost a lot. Two might cost something. Three and you're no longer in mistake territory, you're just outmatched: time to consider stepping down.
That sort of feedback makes more sense to me, and it encourages players to do what Kabam claims they want to encourage: players should step up to higher maps when they think they can move up to them. But the current potion costs tell players not to do that until they are overwhelmingly certain they can do so easily. Stretching to move up is cost prohibitive.
I haven't thought about this long enough to say what the precise numbers should be. Some of that would depend on how the numbers shift around for different alliances doing different maps at different glory budgets. But I definitely think AQ potions should start off much cheaper than they are now, and should be much more available. They can ramp up to the costs they are now. Heck, I don't mind if they eventually ramp up to even higher costs. But the first one shouldn't cost what they cost. Not if the intent is for AQ to be anything other than a sleep walk. Because sleep walks are the only affordable AQ right now.
41
Comments
If you're saying in-game healing exists, so we don't need to use AQ potions, that's missing the point. The point is that in almost any situation where you need potions at all, they are too expensive to use. The calculations attempt to provide intuitive scale of the numbers, not to specify how much healing is necessary for any particular map. To actually analyze that in full would simply add computational complexity for no useful purpose.
But that seems too obvious, so I'm assuming it is some more subtle idea I am overlooking.
AQ allow us to get a better roster not in Quality, but in Quantity. Let's say your higher champions are 5r5/6r2. You're not supposed to do AQ aiming for your first 6r3, but to get more 5r5/6r2 that will help you to do Content that eventually leads to your first 6r3.
AQ is a chore, not a challenge. If you see yourself having problems with it, switch your approach, do a lower map and focus on doing content.
If you're trying a map for the first time then it's expected to use items and based on that experience you get to decide if it's whort it and/or if you're prepared to do it.
This Website looks very helpful. Could you please share the link?
I don't think they're going to jump up to the next map and start having more fun but at least it could feel a little less stale for a while.
I have been reading your post 2 times to fully understand it, and I totally agree with you.
I'm officer in a chill alliance, we just do map 5, but I still have to buy potions so I can deal with the miniboss etc..my rating is 900k, so when doing AW and AQ and sidequest at the same time, I have to use glory on potions... that's 16 champs I need to do all that... and since I don't pull the right champs, I really need those AQ potions...yes you could argue that I'm not skilled enough, but I think that most players isn't.
FYI Beast did me well in AQ(even aw) back when max 4* were the best you could hope for; the days when you had zero opportunity to acquire revives or health potions at anything beyond what you would get from summoner advancement, the days when map 5/6 were the pinnacle of AQ.
The other two, while being on the list, are not champions you would rely on for their regen/sustainability. Perhaps that is why you are struggling with the value of regeneration in AQ; you do not know who/how to make use of it.
Question is -> Should they be?
I always saw AQ as a test of sustainability, you have to get your champs through your paths, so you have to prioritise health sometimes.
Coathangr is right, regen is one way. But it’s not the only way. Champions like Corvus, Quake, Kitty, Herc, ghost are all champions that don’t require health potions as much. You can play them either at low health, or in a way that you don’t lose much health.
Champions like King Groot, Diablo and Angela are very sustainable through healing.
Champions like Luke Cage, Stealth Spidey, overseer, Mr Fantastic, Killmonger all have in built safety nets that can prevent damage or let you evade so you avoid damage.
Champions like Cap IW, Sorcerer supreme, guardian, gambit horseman, sunspot, yondu, civil warrior can all reduce block damage so you have to heal less.
Champions with big health pools like Sasquatch and Apoc can take more punishment before getting to lower health’s.
There are unique other ways of being sustainable too, like Man thing taking no crit damage, magik regenerating damage done while in limbo, champions like colossus being so tanky it’s harder to lose health.
Maybe your conclusion is correct, and AQ potions should be made easier to obtain. But I believe currently it’s built on shaky evidence because you’ve ignored a huge aspect of the issue - champion abilities. If everyone used a generic Adaptoid then yeah, getting hit sucks, block damage is an issue and regen isn’t a factor. But we have champions that can counter each aspect of that, and that needs to play a part in your argument.
Lower potion costs don’t fix the “boring” problem but reduced stress of loosing a champion from bug free inputs/frame rates/crashes would fix the enjoyment problem. You know those unexpected things that be aren’t related to skill that exist in this game and can make champion abilities irrelevant
But like I said it’s nice to see someone used Beast even if it was say 4-5 years ago.
I have like 9000 glory as of now. Waiting for glory store to reset.
But it was due to herc and weekly compensation pots which helped a little ( most of them I sold it ). But I can I agree that Aq pots are costly and we need team pots now
You're asserting that because healing champs exist in the game, there isn't anything wrong with the AQ pots/rev system. But over half those champs won't be used in any form unless used in low maps barring no other choices. We get what you're doing and it's not the point of the post.
Many of those champs can't run lanes in maps 7 and 8. But I'm sure you'll come back saying they are because you're the greatest player alive and you never need to use items in any content etc... Blah, blah, blah.
Iron man and superior iron man have been used for their sustainability in AQ however, in map 8 probably not because there are better options. They would be viable for exactly zero of my paths and I’ve never used any for AQ, but have used many others shown in the picture quoted. They may be suitable for map 6 which has been evidenced in the past.
Additionally if you regularly need to heal in AQ you should reevaluate your team, alliance or abilities.
FYI I currently use the ever sustainable Shang, Herc and Mole Man for 1/1/8 while taking advantage of 1 point in willpower. Herc is my powerhouse while Shang chi my utility and mole man being a mix of both. I rarely use items and regularly finish at the top of the BG in points while being capable of taking every fight to the end of the map without a single item used, on occasion. So uh what are you trying to say, I would not need bottom of the barrel sustainability for my paths in AQ nor would they be viable for the map I currently play, but they could be options for players on lesser AQ maps.