Why doesn't SG make Team Cost a more integral part of the game?

Ideas & Feature Requests
, , ,
1

When I first started E&P I thought that the Team Cost system was going to play a much more integral role.

But then it just sorta maxed out at 130 (26 point per 5-star hero), and that was that. Anyone could bring anything anywhere.

But I think they should revisit this system; hear me out!

You have to assume any PvE content would be balanced to accommodate this change, of course.

But think about PvP tournaments and wars and stuff, where there was a Team Cost cap that was different. AND, that LB heroes / Emblemed heroes ALSO had a different Team Cost.

So like, 26 points for just a fully-leveled legendary.
But 30 points if they are fully emblem-ed.
And 35 points if they are LB.
And 40 points if they are LBx2.

And the Team Cost cap…they could change that per war, per event, &c.

And of course, in the regular levels, you could bring anything at all that you wanted.

I think this could help a lot for E&P. It would cause a LOT of variety, and would make it so people might use a LOT more of their lower-level creatures.

Seriously, I wonder if one of the beta guys could bring this idea to the table as a suggestion?

I think this might even help people who are otherwise enraged about the LB2 stuff. (People would not have to LB2 nearly as many Legendaries, if they didn’t want, and it would cause a lot more interesting fights, I think.)

Again, I didn’t post this in the LB2 thread because I am not really talking about that. I am talking about how they should revamp the Team Cost system.

What do you think?

  • Yes, please! They should totally do something like this. (Lots of number crunching beforehand, of course.)
  • No way! This wouldn’t improve anything.
  • Other; I will post my comments below!

0 voters

2

From what I can recall team cost was initially used as a way to limit heroes in initial starting – I figured so you weren’t going overboard on using 5* right away and getting bogged down. I could be wrong, it has been a while.

They do limit heroes in tournaments and events and such with different tiers for 3*, 4*, 5* which is essentially the same as using team cost. I would not object to an extra tier for 5* LB heroes if their cost is increased. But what about 3* and 4* LB heroes? It could get a lot more complicated pretty fast. And a lot more of a time-sink. So maybe I would object after all …

Generally, if a player has a good selection of LB’ed heroes there is a reason the ones that aren’t … aren’t.

4 Likes
3

It’s similar, but imagine they had a 4-star tourney with a Team Cost cap. Then you might see people bringing their 3-stars to that. Or even a 5-star tourney, but a low enough cap that maybe someone brings a 2LB 5-star, 2 2LB 4-stars, and 2 LB2 3-stars. Three star guys in a 5-star tourney? Aaah, how wacky! :smiley:

I understand it could get complicated, quickly. But that’s the part I think would be good. You can make it so a team cost was primarily about the power of the hero. (I just saw a forum post where someone had a LB Sonya that was more powerful than a fully-emblem-ed Richard. Which I thought was pretty cool.)

2 Likes
4

I regularly use Treevil in 4* rush tourneys (for defence and attack) and for epic level event tiers. I even once or twice used him in a 5* rush tourney. There is no rule you have to go to the max team cost.

1 Like
5

This would be a perfect counter to Alpha Aethers - up the team cost for LB heroes so you can’t have lvl 90 heroes across the board.

4 Likes
6

I also originally thought team cost would be a factor when I first started playing; it would’ve made the team selection a lot more strategic than it is now. In the end, it didn’t matter. In fact, it was pointless.

Would agree it was something they should have made much more of with respect to team balance and selection. Unfortunately, I think the horse has left the stable so long ago it’s probably lying dead somewhere…

4 Likes
7

So I think it’s pretty much unanimous that this would be a pretty cool thing to add to the game, then.

The summary of the idea being something like, “When you go to an adventure, there’s a Team Cost cap that everyone has to deal with.”

But…before we even really try to suggest this, I know what the owners / managers / &c would say…And we should have an answer for them before they start.

“Yeah it looks like the chumps would like it, but…how do we get rich from it?”

So I ask you all now…what is the best way to implement this so that they really could get some sort of money from this, but without making us hate them?

My thought is this: To incentivize VIP, by making there be several new buildings for our little city that are somehow related to Team Cost.
I’m not certain how to make the buildings Team Cost -related without hating it, though. But maybe you guys are ready with better ideas? :smiley:

Maybe it’s several towers on the castle. (Like, one for each character slot? Or one for each game mode?)
Maybe it lets you ‘underpower’ creatures to bring them to certain game modes?
Like…I have Richard, and I want to bring him to a lower Team Cost tournament or war or whatever. I can “shrink” him to be a 3-star (temporarily) by reducing his stats by…whatever % it needs to be to scale properly.

Seriously though I haven’t put a lot of thought into “HOW CAN MAKE MONEY,” so much as I thought, “What would make a better game?”

So…I think I hit a nerve that everyone can agree with. But…how would SG / Zynga feel like bothering to improve the game? To wit, HOW CAN MAKE MONEY from the improvement? :slight_smile:

8

I think the ‘obvious’ solution is simple:
Each additional point of Team Cost is $5! :laughing:

9

I like the idea of making Team Cost more viable in game. I imagine it to be something like a raid tournament with a Team Cost cap that made you mix and match between your 3*'s, 4*'s, and 5*'s when creating your team in order to fit within the cap limit. Would add variety to some of the pvp elements beyond just having 5* tournaments or just 4* tournaments.

I also like the addition of adding to the team power based on Limit Breaking, Aether Breaking and Talent levels. This might force you to choose a standard leveled 5* over a LB 5* so you bring a 4* instead of a 3* to the raid fight. Or you choose the +20 emblemed and LB 5* and go with a solid 3* to meet the Team Cost cap.

1 Like
10

It’s also my understanding this is just intended to limit new players. Early on, you should be learning the fundamentals rather than complex specials.

Personally, I don’t see any need to do more with this. However, it’s not a bad idea to rely on this more if multiple LB is implemented.

11

It would be a way to finally acknowledge that there are 6* (and soon 7*) heroes in the game.

1 Like
12

This game would be so much better and probably make allot more money if Zynga/SGG thought the way you do. First priority should be making the game better, more fun, more strategic, more enjoyable and then figure out how to monetize that instead of the other way around like they are doing now. Everything they are doing seems to be coming from a profit first thought process and then trying to figure out how to make it so it doesn’t enrage the player base. The biggest (and most profitable) free to play games know this. Wish Zynga would figure that out.

1 Like
13

Now this right here is stupendously wonderful idea!! I would vote for this 20 times if I could. I’m gonna get my significant other to sign up to the forum just to vote for this. A raid tournament or war type with a team cap which would force you to have a mix of 3, 4 & 5* heroes would be awesome and would really mix things up. This is what a QoL improvement looks like.

I tip my cap to you!

Game Well :sunglasses: :mechanical_arm: :wolf:

3 Likes
14

tenor
Precisely and exactly what we would not want…!

1 Like
15

You get it. This is exactly what I imagine.

Making the game interesting with a ton of tradeoffs, instead of just “HAVE BIG RARE CREATURE, PAY NOW.”

Because an interesting game will make normal people pay. And if a lot of normal players are willing to pay, that is a TON more revenue for Zynga. And a lot of happy players, too.

1 Like
16

Exactly! If it is enjoyable, you don’t have to go to too much trouble for people to give you money; they are willing to do it already to continue the experience.

When you’re in an ice cream shop you don’t constantly have someone within arm’s reach screaming at you constantly with a megaphone about how much ice cream you should eat. Because they don’t need to. By contrast, when I open the game and get a chain of ads…
“FEEL THE MIGHT”
“UNLEASH THE ICE”
“COVENTANT SPECIALS”
“SPEND $100 ON AETHERS”
“ATLANTIS SPECIAL–BUY FIVE OFFERS TO BE ALLOWED TO SEE WHAT ELSE YOU COULD BUY”

Good gravy, just make it fun and you won’t have to advertise at all! We’d seek it out because the game is already fun! These things just turn us off!! (No joke, I was going to spend money recently, and then got all the ads, and thought…nah.)

4 Likes
17

Agreed, Punching up doesn’t negatively affect game balance.

1 Like
18

Ogima - Level 4/85, 20 emblems, power 992, TEAM COST 26

Horghall - Level 4/80, zero emblems, power 753, TEAM COST 26

Power difference 239. That’s a power difference of 31%. For perspective, Sonya has a base power of 650 at 4/70, with a team cost of 15. Difference in power from Sonya to Horghall? 15%. Based on that ratio, Ogima’s team cost should be 49.

You can have power creep and still balance the game. Just assign realistic team costs to higher level heroes. Might even make the game more interesting in one way, as players use math to strategize making teams fit.

But we all know that isn’t going to happen. This should actually be EMBARRASSING for SG. But it isn’t. The cash cow shall proceed apace until it becomes grotesque and destroys itself.

4 Likes
19

Why do you compare ogima power level with emblems to horgalls without emblems?

20

To illustrate that no matter the disparity, the TEAM COST remains the same.

1 Like