"Lazy" characters

Unknown

I hear a fair few characters referred to as "Lazy" on here (Daken, Thor etc). Where does this terminology come from?

TheVulture

It refers to a character who is copied from an existing character, but with a different * rating.
Such copies are referred to as "lazy" versions because they were added as 'new' characters in game, but use recycled powers, text & have only tweaked art assets.

So there was 2** Thor originally, then a 3*** "lazy" version of him was added with the same powers.
Though there are 1*, 2** & 3*** versions of Black Widow, none of them are considered "lazy" as they all have different powers.

The "lazy" characters released so far are:
3*** Thor (from 2**)
3*** Daken (from 2**)
3*** Storm (from 1*)
2** Human Torch (from 3***)

Unknown

I would consider 3* Captain America a "lazy" character as well.
Well, they did add the protect tile to his blue. That is a change to his power set.
Maybe he should be considered more "shiftless" than "lazy".

Unknown

They're not bad characters per se--Thor, Cap, and Daken are all very good--but they're looked at mostly with contempt because instead of legitimately new characters, of which there are a million options in the Marvel Universe, we got copy/paste versions of characters we already had. The Human Torch reverse lazy move in particular was just bizarre.

Unknown

When I started this game, there were equal numbers of 2 and 3 star characters. Now there are twice as many 3 stars. I, for one, would appreciate a few more reverse lazy creations for a few more playing options. Black Panther, Falcon, Hood, Psylocke are some non-RYG that come to mind.

Unknown

papa07 wrote:

When I started this game, there were equal numbers of 2 and 3 star characters. Now there are twice as many 3 stars. I, for one, would appreciate a few more reverse lazy creations for a few more playing options. Black Panther, Falcon, Hood, Psylocke are some non-RYG that come to mind.

No! Stop this immediately! What you want are more NEW 2* characters, with NEW powers. Leave the 3* characters the way they are. You'll be excited when you get them up and running because it will be something NEW you haven't had access to before. We do not need more recycling, in either direction. It is lazy and should not be encouraged.

Unknown

Thanks for the heads up everybody

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

papa07 wrote:

When I started this game, there were equal numbers of 2 and 3 star characters. Now there are twice as many 3 stars. I, for one, would appreciate a few more reverse lazy creations for a few more playing options. Black Panther, Falcon, Hood, Psylocke are some non-RYG that come to mind.

No! Stop this immediately! What you want are more NEW 2* characters, with NEW powers. Leave the 3* characters the way they are. You'll be excited when you get them up and running because it will be something NEW you haven't had access to before. We do not need more recycling, in either direction. It is lazy and should not be encouraged.

New 2* characters will not bring in money, so they will not happen. For that same reason, Moonstone, Bullseye, Bagman will never be fixed. If the only way to get new 2* characters is lazy, then necessary evil.

Let them keep creating new, non-lazy 3* characters to generate revenue. All I would hope is that for every 2 new characters, they add a lazy 2* to help keep the game in balance.

Unknown

papa07 wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

papa07 wrote:

When I started this game, there were equal numbers of 2 and 3 star characters. Now there are twice as many 3 stars. I, for one, would appreciate a few more reverse lazy creations for a few more playing options. Black Panther, Falcon, Hood, Psylocke are some non-RYG that come to mind.

No! Stop this immediately! What you want are more NEW 2* characters, with NEW powers. Leave the 3* characters the way they are. You'll be excited when you get them up and running because it will be something NEW you haven't had access to before. We do not need more recycling, in either direction. It is lazy and should not be encouraged.

New 2* characters will not bring in money, so they will not happen. For that same reason, Moonstone, Bullseye, Bagman will never be fixed. If the only way to get new 2* characters is lazy, then necessary evil.

Let them keep creating new, non-lazy 3* characters to generate revenue. All I would hope is that for every 2 new characters, they add a lazy 2* to help keep the game in balance.

2* characters don't make any money for them because they devalued them completely by giving them out like candy in an attempt to make money off forcing new players to buy a lot of roster space instead. Back in the day I bought a couple OBW covers because I was getting desperate to get her up and running and the Gods of Random were not kind enough to bestow upon me good token fortune. Moral of the story? Their failure to monetize the game in a clever way should not be an excuse for you to ask them to be lazy in their character releases. They need to be smarter about how they make their money without scamming their customers with **** and gimmicks.

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

papa07 wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

papa07 wrote:

When I started this game, there were equal numbers of 2 and 3 star characters. Now there are twice as many 3 stars. I, for one, would appreciate a few more reverse lazy creations for a few more playing options. Black Panther, Falcon, Hood, Psylocke are some non-RYG that come to mind.

No! Stop this immediately! What you want are more NEW 2* characters, with NEW powers. Leave the 3* characters the way they are. You'll be excited when you get them up and running because it will be something NEW you haven't had access to before. We do not need more recycling, in either direction. It is lazy and should not be encouraged.

New 2* characters will not bring in money, so they will not happen. For that same reason, Moonstone, Bullseye, Bagman will never be fixed. If the only way to get new 2* characters is lazy, then necessary evil.

Let them keep creating new, non-lazy 3* characters to generate revenue. All I would hope is that for every 2 new characters, they add a lazy 2* to help keep the game in balance.

2* characters don't make any money for them because they devalued them completely by giving them out like candy in an attempt to make money off forcing new players to buy a lot of roster space instead. Back in the day I bought a couple OBW covers because I was getting desperate to get her up and running and the Gods of Random were not kind enough to bestow upon me good token fortune. Moral of the story? Their failure to monetize the game in a clever way should not be an excuse for you to ask them to be lazy in their character releases. They need to be smarter about how they make their money without scamming their customers with **** and gimmicks.

That is a perfect world, I am thinking of solutions for the world that we play this game in. Most 2 star and transitioning players game experience would be greatly improved with a larger roster of usable 2* characters. If the only way to get them is lazy, so be it.

Unknown

papa07 wrote:

That is a perfect world, I am thinking of solutions for the world that we play this game in. Most 2 star and transitioning players game experience would be greatly improved with a larger roster of usable 2* characters. If the only way to get them is lazy, so be it.

You can call it realism if you like, but I find that thinking defeatist and sad. You're accepting, nay demanding, they give you a mediocre product because you don't believe they're willing to give you anything better. Instead you should be demanding they give you something better and not paying them until they do. If everyone had that attitude this game would either improve or die. Either way we'd be playing something better.

This game is great at its core. It's the way they've chosen to operate the business end of things that is stupid, and there's no good reason to roll over and accept it without a fight.

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

This game is great at its core. It's the way they've chosen to operate the business end of things that is stupid, and there's no good reason to roll over and accept it without a fight.

Agree to disagree. This is a game that I play on my phone, that I give time but no money to. As long as I am entertained, I will keep playing. When I am no longer entertained, I will find something else.

As for fighting for change, I have limited energy and resources for fighting - I save them for things involving my family or my job, not for a game.

As for the comment earlier that lazy 2* devalue their original 3* covers, I disagree as well. If anything, a strong 2* makes me excited to get the covers to play the 3* versions, as they are a sneak preview of what the more powerful 3* version is.

Unknown

papa07 wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

This game is great at its core. It's the way they've chosen to operate the business end of things that is stupid, and there's no good reason to roll over and accept it without a fight.

Agree to disagree. This is a game that I play on my phone, that I give time but no money to. As long as I am entertained, I will keep playing. When I am no longer entertained, I will find something else. As for fighting for change, I have limited energy and resources for fighting - I save them for things involving my family or my job, not for a game.

You can play the cool-guy-just-a-game-I-play-on-my-phone-don't-really-care card if you want. You care enough to come to the forum to talk about it. And whether you care enough or have enough energy to try and make things better is entirely your business, as is whatever you do with your job and your family. None of my concern. But when you stand up and yell at the top of your lungs "Please give us lazy ****! We're desperate and we'll take anything!" then I do take exception to that. If you don't want to be part of the solution, fine. Don't be part of the problem.

papa07 wrote:

As for the comment earlier that lazy 2* devalue their original 3* covers, I disagree as well. If anything, a strong 2* makes me excited to get the covers to play the 3* versions, as they are a sneak preview of what the more powerful 3* version is.

My comment on 2*s covers being devalued had nothing to do with 3* characters or the lazies. It had to do with the fact that 2* covers are so common now as they are included in the PvP rewards that they have no value to the customer. That is why they can't make money off releasing 2* characters, not because 2* characters are innately without value. We'll see how they handle 2* Torch, whether they add him to the drop pool with all the others and how soon. There's no reason why they couldn't make money off good new 2* characters by selling them to transitioning players. You can get almost three 2* covers for the price of one 3*, and if you had the first covers for each color of a good 2* character it might be an attractive alternative to someone who isn't ready to invest in 3*s or just can't get the covers to go all in. Again, the problem isn't that people don't want to give them money, it's that they haven't given people anything worth giving them money for.

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

Leave the 3* characters the way they are. You'll be excited when you get them up and running because it will be something NEW you haven't had access to before. We do not need more recycling, in either direction. It is lazy and should not be encouraged.

I was too lazy to find the quote earlier, but simply put, the more I play with a character, the more excited I am to collect 13 covers and corresponding ISO for the 3* version, if I enjoy the weaker version. Example, I want to max LazyThor, but not LazyCap. Give me a month and I will know what I want to do with LDaken and 3* Torch, once I can test drive the 2* versions.

[quote="ThugpatrolYou can play the cool-guy-just-a-game-I-play-on-my-phone-don't-really-care card if you want. You care enough to come to the forum to talk about it. And whether you care enough or have enough energy to try and make things better is entirely your business, as is whatever you do with your job and your family. None of my concern. But when you stand up and yell at the top of your lungs "Please give us lazy ****! We're desperate and we'll take anything!" then I do take exception to that. If you don't want to be part of the solution, fine. Don't be part of the problem.[/quote]

Safe to say that being part of a extended back and forth internet argument invalidates any cool card I might have.

We disagree again, adding new 2* characters increases enjoyment of the game and lengthens potential playing time for the 2* players in the long transition period. While adding lazy characters is the least desirable solution, it still adds value to the game and happens to be the most likely option to happen.

You state over and over that 2* characters will not be profitable for D3 due to their business model, so the only realistic option for new 2* characters is the lazy route by your own arguments. You can choose to make the argument that if you can't have perfection, you want nothing. Personally, if it adds value, I want it. Life is about compromise and I don't have any power to influence the decision.

Unknown

papa07 wrote:

I was too lazy to find the quote earlier, but simply put, the more I play with a character, the more excited I am to collect 13 covers and corresponding ISO for the 3* version, if I enjoy the weaker version. Example, I want to max LazyThor, but not LazyCap. Give me a month and I will know what I want to do with LDaken and 3* Torch, once I can test drive the 2* versions.

Right know the biggest problem of the intire game, to me, its called ISO-8.

When this lazy characters started to show up, at that time, I was already in the 3* land.
And seeing the game as I see it know, I would not recommend spending ISO leveling a 2* that have a lazy version.

I started to make my transition when I got only 4 2* maxed at that time, and I don't regret making this decision.
I can't recall the exact amount os iso needed to fully level a 3*, but its something around 172k wich is a lot.

I understand your vision of playing with 2* looking forward to their 3* version but the ISO your are now using to level that 2* would help alot leveling the 3* version.

At least this is my vision now, looking from the perspective of a 3* player.

Unknown

papa07 wrote:

Simply put, the more I play with a character, the more excited I am to collect 13 covers and corresponding ISO for the 3* version, if I enjoy the weaker version. Example, I want to max LazyThor, but not LazyCap. Give me a month and I will know what I want to do with LDaken and 3* Torch, once I can test drive the 2* versions.

I see where you're coming from. I do. You're responding to the instant gratification of having a new toy you can play with now. But let me give you another perspective on this. Once you have the 3* versions, their lesser 2* cousins are all but worthless except when given artificial value, as in limited roster events. On the other hand unique 2*s like OBW, CStorm, and MNMags can have much more value because they do things even those within the 3* ranks can't do, and when they are buffed they are a blast. Even boosted to 130ish in the last event 2* Thor was still a bad version of Lazy Thor, and 2* Cap is just pathetic. Having vastly better versions of characters in the game makes the lesser versions obsolete, just a dead roster spot that only sees use in gimmick events that exist specifically so you have to carry them. On the other hand 2* with different powers can still be of use even after you've made the 3* transition.

papa07 wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

When you stand up and yell at the top of your lungs "Please give us lazy ****! We're desperate and we'll take anything!" then I do take exception to that. If you don't want to be part of the solution, fine. Don't be part of the problem.

While adding lazy characters is the least desirable solution, it still adds value to the game and happens to be the most likely option to happen. You state over and over that 2* characters will not be profitable for D3 due to their business model, so the only realistic option for new 2* characters is the lazy route by your own arguments. You can choose to make the argument that if you can't have perfection, you want nothing. Personally, if it adds value, I want it. Life is about compromise and I don't have any power to influence the decision.

Again this seems like a very defeatist position to me, and still more than a little sad. Lazy 2* characters are not a compromise. They are substandard goods. They are luxury sports cars with broken axles and no doors. New 2* characters could be made profitable (as I pointed out before with my OBW example which you seem to have ignored) it's just that they choose not to make the effort. Your enthusiastic embrace of their lazy offerings only encourages their behavior.

The point is you can jump up and down with joy every time you get a new lazy cover, I don't care in the least, but by giving your voice to the approval of a practice which even you called "the least desirable solution" you are validating their actions. It's not helping. They have to earn our money. The sooner people stop giving in to their shady offerings (recruitment tokens, I'm looking at you) and start demanding an increase in quality the sooner we may actually see some change. Until then they're going to continue to sprinkle us with garbage and call it treasure.

Unknown

Rafaelmsb wrote:

I started to make my transition when I got only 4 2* maxed at that time, and I don't regret making this decision.
I can't recall the exact amount os iso needed to fully level a 3*, but its something around 172k wich is a lot.

I understand your vision of playing with 2* looking forward to their 3* version but the ISO your are now using to level that 2* would help alot leveling the 3* version.

At least this is my vision now, looking from the perspective of a 3* player.

You also made the transition pre-True Healing, where oBW, Ares, and Thor was all you needed to play all day. It's a different world down here now. TH has added at least 1, probably 2 months to my transition. Plenty of time to rack up extra ISO, in my opinion, to support a 2* that adds playing time.

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

I see where you're coming from. I do. You're responding to the instant gratification of having a new toy you can play with now. But let me give you another perspective on this. Once you have the 3* versions, their lesser 2* cousins are all but worthless except when given artificial value, as in limited roster events. On the other hand unique 2*s like OBW, CStorm, and MNMags can have much more value because they do things even those within the 3* ranks can't do, and when they are buffed they are a blast. Even boosted to 130ish in the last event 2* Thor was still a bad version of Lazy Thor, and 2* Cap is just pathetic. Having vastly better versions of characters in the game makes the lesser versions obsolete, just a dead roster spot that only sees use in gimmick events that exist specifically so you have to carry them. On the other hand 2* with different powers can still be of use even after you've made the 3* transition.

I get that they will seem obsolete once I have a new shiny 3* versions, but let's look at this logically. I have been playing 130 days and have 75 covers spread amongst 23 3* and 4* characters. With the TH changes, my guess is that it will be 3 months before I have 2 usable 3* characters. That is 90 more days of playing an exclusive (or at least primary) 2* roster. A little more variation is sorely needed to keep my interest in the game for that time, as this is a long transition period in a game that can be repetitive. For 90 days, that lazy 2* is bright, shiny and new to me.

Based on PvP, I don't see teams with multiple 166s pairing one up with Ares or other unique 2* characters for the simple reason that they are vastly underpowered comparatively, different skill set or not.

Thugpatrol wrote:

Again this seems like a very defeatist position to me, and still more than a little sad. Lazy 2* characters are not a compromise. They are substandard goods. They are luxury sports cars with broken axles and no doors. New 2* characters could be made profitable (as I pointed out before with my OBW example which you seem to have ignored) it's just that they choose not to make the effort. Your enthusiastic embrace of their lazy offerings only encourages their behavior.

People can still choose to buy oBW covers today. I sat on a 1/4/5 build forever because I only drew Black covers until I tanked out of the top50 in an event to get her cover instead of the 3*. I am still waiting on a 5th Red for Magneto, but I feel no urge to buy it because of the simple fact that 3* characters vastly overpower 2* which vastly overpower 1*. If you make the 2* covers rarer, you will just have a smaller player base. I transitioned to 2* before those covers rained like candy and never considered buying a cover. The struggle to climb is part of the game, but you need a balance between different levels of users. 4 months ago there were (approximately) 7 1*, 12 2*, 11 3*, and 2 4*. In the past 4 months, they have added 1 4*, 11 3*, and 1 2*. Just another way to skew the game towards the established players. With TH, you need more options than ever before, which demonstrates the need for more 2* options.

Thugpatrol wrote:

The point is you can jump up and down with joy every time you get a new lazy cover, I don't care in the least, but by giving your voice to the approval of a practice which even you called "the least desirable solution" you are validating their actions. It's not helping. They have to earn our money. The sooner people stop giving in to their shady offerings (recruitment tokens, I'm looking at you) and start demanding an increase in quality the sooner we may actually see some change. Until then they're going to continue to sprinkle us with garbage and call it treasure.

Again, I am not giving them money, but 1000s of users are, which validates their current model. If the only 3 options for new 2* are a new character, a revised existing (Moonstone, Bullseye looking in your direction), or a lazy version of a 3*, which one do you think is the only option under their current model that has a chance at happening?

Unknown

papa07 wrote:

Based on PvP, I don't see teams with multiple 166s pairing one up with Ares or other unique 2* characters for the simple reason that they are vastly underpowered comparatively, different skill set or not.

Maybe not Ares, because he is a damage dealer who while formidable pales when compared to 3* talent, but you will still see people pairing OBW with maxed 3*s, like Punisher, and they still might use a team like CStorm/MNMags on offense against certain enemy teams. Meanwhile nobody who has a maxed Lazy Thor is ever going to use 2* Thor for anything other than an act of desperation. And again you're confusing the issue. Maxed 2*s in general are no substitute for maxed 3* in PvP under normal circumstances, but unique 2*s might see use if they have synergy with a boosted featured character. Also PvP is only half the game. Unique 2*s can have value even to a 3* roster because they bring different skills to the table. Copy/paste 2*s do not, because they're just worse.

papa07 wrote:

People can still choose to buy oBW covers today. I sat on a 1/4/5 build forever because I only drew Black covers until I tanked out of the top50 in an event to get her cover instead of the 3*. I am still waiting on a 5th Red for Magneto, but I feel no urge to buy it because of the simple fact that 3* characters vastly overpower 2* which vastly overpower 1*. If you make the 2* covers rarer, you will just have a smaller player base. I transitioned to 2* before those covers rained like candy and never considered buying a cover.

You've missed the point entirely. Part of an item's value is based in rarity. When I was talking about buying OBW covers I was lucky to be pulling a handful of 2*s from tokens in a given week. Now they fall from the sky. I've gotten double digit 2* covers in a single LR. Why would anyone buy them when they're that common except maybe out of frustration for that last elusive cover here and there? Keeping new 2* covers somewhat rare gives them greater value, and if they are for good unique characters there is a much greater chance people will buy them. You have confessed repeatedly that you have not and do not intend to spend any money on this game, so using yourself as an example of what may or may not be marketable to the audience as a whole is foolishness. There are ways to make new, unique 2* characters profitable while adding something of value to the game as a whole. They just choose not to do so.

papa07 wrote:

If the only 3 options for new 2* are a new character, a revised existing (Moonstone, Bullseye looking in your direction), or a lazy version of a 3*, which one do you think is the only option under their current model that has a chance at happening?

A good part of what this whole debate boils down to is that you're willing to accept, with some enthusiasm I might add, the worst possible scenario simply because you think it's the only thing you're going to get. And you're probably right. That's probably what you're going to get. Because you and many others are going to take the slap to the face and say, "Thank you, sir! May I have another?" This really bothers me. I can't help it. But who am I to convince you that your rotten meat doesn't taste like prime rib? If you're happy, be happy. I just wish you wouldn't embolden them with your approval for giving you the least.

HailMary

Thugpatrol wrote:

A good part of what this whole debate boils down to is that you're willing to accept, with some enthusiasm I might add, the worst possible scenario simply because you think it's the only thing you're going to get. And you're probably right. That's probably what you're going to get. Because you and many others are going to take the slap to the face and say, "Thank you, sir! May I have another?" This really bothers me. I can't help it. But who am I to convince you that your rotten meat doesn't taste like prime rib? If you're happy, be happy. I just wish you wouldn't embolden them with your approval for giving you the least.

You do realize that not everyone views forum comments about MPQ character releases as munitions to be deployed in a pitched ideological battle against The Man, right? Sure, you may view yourself as part of a grand advocacy campaign to selflessly make life better for the playing masses, but calling someone advocating a compromise a pathetic, defeatist little b---- (which, let's be clear, is exactly what you're doing with your "slap to the face" and "rotten meat" color commentary) is laughable.

But yeah, you're right, it's clearly papa07 who's "yelling at the top of his lungs" and playing "the cool guy" here.

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

A good part of what this whole debate boils down to is that you're willing to accept, with some enthusiasm I might add, the worst possible scenario simply because you think it's the only thing you're going to get. And you're probably right. That's probably what you're going to get. Because you and many others are going to take the slap to the face and say, "Thank you, sir! May I have another?" This really bothers me. I can't help it. But who am I to convince you that your rotten meat doesn't taste like prime rib? If you're happy, be happy. I just wish you wouldn't embolden them with your approval for giving you the least.

You do realize that not everyone views forum comments about MPQ character releases as munitions to be deployed in a pitched ideological battle against The Man, right? Sure, you may view yourself as part of a grand advocacy campaign to selflessly make life better for the playing masses, but calling someone advocating a compromise a pathetic, defeatist little b---- (which, let's be clear, is exactly what you're doing with your "slap to the face" and "rotten meat" color commentary) is laughable.

Whoa, let's pump the breaks here for a second. I was under the impression this was an online forum where one comes to share opinions about things related to this game we all seem to like to some varying degree. I wasn't accusing anyone of being a war criminal or trying to have them hauled off to prison. I was engaging in what I perceived to be a friendly debate with someone possessing an opposite but not uneducated stance on this matter. If I came on a little strong in he heat of the moment and offended him, you, a bunch of adorable puppies, a head of cabbage, or anyone else across this wonderful vast universe with internet access, that was not my intent and I do sincerely apologize. Nor was any of this meant to be a personal attack or even a subtle form of name calling in any way. We differ in opinion. That's great. The world would be very boring without different opinions.

HailMary wrote:

But yeah, you're right, it's clearly papa07 who's "yelling at the top of his lungs" and playing "the cool guy" here.

Now, while I do appreciate the rhetorical technique of attempting to use my own words against me, the "cool-guy" comment you've taken somewhat out of context. It was in response to his position that this was just a cute like game that I play on my phone and I don't really care that much but here I am posting about it on the forum all day. I thought it was a cheap card to play, so I called him on it. The yelling at the top of his lungs bit was really just a little imagery for emphasis, but if you want to throw that back at me I'll take it. I'm not shy about voicing my opinions (obviously), and I'll stand behind them. If you really want to come at me, come at me, but bring something a little stronger than that.

In all seriousness, I mean no disrespect to anyone. I like a little friendly debate now and then. If I got a little fired up and crossed a line, I am sorry.