New 2 stars are a positive thing!

Fulgren

Doesn’t anyone else think that new 2 stars add to the game just as much as new 3 stars?

For people who have already maxed a significant number of characters, a new 2 star is such a low-cost investment that it’s not even going to cost you anything. Eventually we are going to get Human Torch as a random PvP drop. I’m looking forward to opening something other than Bullseye and Moonstone with 2 event tokens.

I think D3 needs to put out more new 2 stars. Hopefully the devs can add more variety instead of basing on “lazy” versions. Wouldn’t it be great if going forward, some of the upcoming 3 star releases come with a 2 star with different abilities? Not every hero, just the ones where it might be cool. There are so many Marvel stories with so many costumes/variants/alternate versions/etc there is no end to what they can do. Will flooding the 2 star slot kill this game? I really think not.

Just a random example:

Iron Fist - Immortal Weapon * * *
https://dcomixologyssl.sslcs.cdngc.net/c/JUN082438_1.jpg?h=63445c1488ae5d1227c4150f7a7b0db0

Iron Fist - New Avengers * *
http://media.comicbookmovie.com/images/users/uploads/33503/NEW-AVENGERS-27%20Luke%20Cage%20vs%20Iron%20Fist.jpg


Look, Ice and the devs can ‘motivate’ you all they want about roster diversity and whatnot, but at the end of the day, if you have a maxed Magneto/Punisher/top tier dude, you are gonna use that character. Doesn’t matter what 2 star flavor of the month they try to promote, but as long as Punisher makes 3 +100 ATK tiles for 8 mana, he’s going in.

Unknown

I think people's problem is less "new 2*" than it is "new Lazy Character, who, as a 2*, is useless to us." If a 2* was what it took to get us Iron Fist, fine, but this is just someone I'm going to level to 20 and use only when essential, which will be a lot. By the time I've got him covered he won't be essential anymore. We want NEW 2*s, not another avenue for them to do lazy characters.

squirrel1120

... and what on earth made them think, 'hey, if we need more characters in the 2* range, lets give them another using green/red!'? At least he's not g/r/y... sigh

Another character to take up a slot I'd much rather put a 3* in instead of having to throw them away, but I'll have to pick him up when he comes across for the potential one extra match per session he may or may not add dependent on circumstances.

Unknown

Nightcrawler

Blue: Teleport - Nightcrawler teleports away from danger to catch his breath. Burst of X health.
Black: BAMF! - Surprise! Guess who is behind you. Do X damage.
Purple: Confusion - A series of quick teleports allows nightcrawler to disarm his enemies. Transfer X enemy special tiles to your use.


And I didnt even try that hard.

Unknown

Err, why exactly we need new ** characters before fixing the numerous existing ones making them playable?

And once it's done more **s are welcome, provided they are:
- new
- usable

Human candle fails on both accounts.

IamTheDanger

I have seen a few posts with players asking for the ability to lower a character level. I know this is different, but I think it can still be useful. Now have a high level 3* torch and I will soon have a 2* with same abilities to go with it.

yes, the 3* is far more powerful, but sometimes 3*s can be too powerful. There are times when I play a match and if I use my characters over level 100 then it will be over way too soon. Theres no challenge. That is one of the things I play for.

With a 2* torch, I can use Human Torch more often with high level opponents as well as low level. With weaker characters I dont have to worry about winning too fast. I can take my time, build up my ap for powers and win with style. Like doing just enough damage to get all 3 opponents health down below 50 or 100 health, then using all the powers I can in that last turn for a final blast. Just a little habit of mine, but I cant do it if my team is so powerful they kill all opponents in just a few turns.

I do agree that completely new and different characters would be nice. But if I cant raise or lower the level of my characters to a level equal to my opponens, then having different levels of the same character is the next best thing. Dont misunderstand me now, I still use my high level 3*, but only if I want a fast win or am grinding those last few points at the end of an event.

This is one that I beleive I am going to like and use often.

JJ

Unknown

New 2* characters are great, but with such a huge number of characters in the Marvel U to choose from, the "Lame On" version of Torch is just lazy and a little insulting.

Mr. Fantastic, the Thing, Silver Surfer, H.E.R.B.I.E., Willy Lumpkin, those weird Molloid kids, Dragon Man, any Inhuman, or that girl Human Torch was dating that dressed up as the Thing for a little while would have been better options as 2* characters.

MasterBoRaiCho

The gamer in me says: "Who cares about another 2* character I'm not gonna use, considering I've already moved on from 2*-ville?"

The collector in me says: "Well, at least he won't be hard to get."

I don't hate the idea of new 2* characters - hey, nothing wrong with variety - but how about expanding the 4* pool, to give people a place to go that's not BagLady or X-Force?

Unknown

MasterBoRaiCho wrote:

The gamer in me says: "Who cares about another 2* character I'm not gonna use, considering I've already moved on from 2*-ville?"

The collector in me says: "Well, at least he won't be hard to get."

I don't hate the idea of new 2* characters - hey, nothing wrong with variety - but how about expanding the 4* pool, to give people a place to go that's not BagLady or X-Force?

I predict a new 4* character in less than two weeks.

And he'll be useful in 12.

Twysta

I remember Ice saying they weren't going to make any more Gold Characters other than the ones they had already made on the back burner....

Not only does it seem they changed their mind (again) on that one, but they're now giving us silver editions too.
I agree, more 2*'s would be good. But it's disappointing to see new characters using the same skill sets as previous carnations considering the endless possibilities they could have.

This is probably a side effect on the fact that they seem against making minor nerfs/buffs on characters as the game goes on and instead like to opt for ONE GIANT NERF instead, meaning that making new skills if they end up being a little unbalanced is too much hassle for them or something?

I don't know. Personally I thought it would've been fun to come up with new skills and putting them to use rather than throwing out new characters with the same old skills... on that note you'd think it'd be a good opportunity to show off making some cool character art as well... but

Unknown

New 2*s are a very good thing, but emphasis on new.

Rehashed characters should not now, nor ever, exist in the game. I'm totally cool with having 1, 2, and 3 star versions of the same character, but the characters should be different and symbolize different points in the hero's/villain's career.

See Wolverine or Iron Man for an example of how it should be done. See Thor and Human Torch for an example of how to succeed in business without trying.

Unknown

Fulgren wrote:

Doesn’t anyone else think that new 2 stars add to the game just as much as new 3 stars?

For people who have already maxed a significant number of characters, a new 2 star is such a low-cost investment that it’s not even going to cost you anything. Eventually we are going to get Human Torch as a random PvP drop. I’m looking forward to opening something other than Bullseye and Moonstone with 2 event tokens.

I think D3 needs to put out more new 2 stars ... Wouldn’t it be great if going forward, some of the upcoming 3 star releases come with a 2 star with different abilities? ...There are so many Marvel stories with so many costumes/variants/alternate versions/etc there is no end...

DD-The-Mighty

This is a positive thing. Now any of the "high level" players looking to level this one specific 2 star will see how slow random and tedious (and sadly much worse than before) the game is about focusing on your favorite character. Theres gonna be a lot of HP spending if anyone ever wants to see Low Level Torch at 13/13.

Unknown

I don't play much to get my Torch covered, so I like that there is a 2* Torch now. Of course I'd be happier if it was a completely new char. It's not all bad.

I actually started to level my Venom again. After that I'll level my Bullseye. Btw, in the current PvE Cap and Moon are buffed who make a decent team by themselves. Next will be 2* Torch provided that I can get it.

Unknown

pasa_ wrote:

Err, why exactly we need new ** characters before fixing the numerous existing ones making them playable?

And once it's done more **s are welcome, provided they are:
- new
- usable

Human candle fails on both accounts.

the dev's don't listen. this ONE change would make the game greatly more enjoyable and playable. then fix the mmr issues (i should NOT be facing nothing but max level teams considering i don't have even one hero close to max level especially now that i can't use obw reliably) and then it'd be well on it's way to being a great game.

Spoit

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

This is a positive thing. Now any of the "high level" players looking to level this one specific 2 star will see how slow random and tedious (and sadly much worse than before) the game is about focusing on your favorite character. Theres gonna be a lot of HP spending if anyone ever wants to see Low Level Torch at 13/13.

....what? Why would anyone spend HP on 2* covers in general, much less one that's not a game changer like thor/ares or OBW?

DD-The-Mighty

Spoit wrote:

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

This is a positive thing. Now any of the "high level" players looking to level this one specific 2 star will see how slow random and tedious (and sadly much worse than before) the game is about focusing on your favorite character. Theres gonna be a lot of HP spending if anyone ever wants to see Low Level Torch at 13/13.

....what? Why would anyone spend HP on 2* covers in general, much less one that's not a game changer like thor/ares or OBW?

totally in agreement. but in the mind of some, the game is about catching all the Pokemanz (completionists). and in light of what they spend to cover their 3s, what it would cost to HP up a 2* is negligible. But i think the number of players who would HP Low level Torch are small. he really should have been offered in the 2* slot. all three colours, not that 1 cover **** either. Give it to the players that want and need him. oh well.

Mawtful

My biggest complaint is that this new Torch shares the same colours and abilities as the existing HT.
Previously,
the same character at different tiers had different abilities - that's cool.
3-star clones of existing 2-star characters were labelled "gold" - that's understandable.

So what am I supposed to think about this? Is 3-star HT going to be re-labelled as "Gold"? If no, why not? Why did you even bother creating a new label if you're not going to stick to the rules you set yourself?

Unknown

My issue with this is I need to either sell a fully covered character (I am a collector and don't want to even get rid of my 1*'s) or spend 550 HP for a 2* character that is the same as the 3* character I already have mostly covered. If it was a brand new 2*, I'd have less of an issue using 550 HP, but I'd rather add another 700 HP to that and get one more cover on my 3* Torch.

End result is I'll probably give in and spend 550 HP, but I'm not going to be happy about it.

Unknown

kaganb wrote:

My issue with this is I need to either sell a fully covered character (I am a collector and don't want to even get rid of my 1*'s) or spend 550 HP for a 2* character that is the same as the 3* character I already have mostly covered. If it was a brand new 2*, I'd have less of an issue using 550 HP, but I'd rather add another 700 HP to that and get one more cover on my 3* Torch.

End result is I'll probably give in and spend 550 HP, but I'm not going to be happy about it.

That's the heart of it. Their metrics will tell them we still do this sh!t, and they'll continue to assume we enjoy it. Or, more likely, they don't care if we like it one way or another, as long as there's money in it.