"Top 15% get a 3* cover" - business model discussion

Dauthi

Kunblue wrote:

I'm also at 350 ish in the ironman pvp and all I can fight is 166's. My incentive to play is 0 as I can't realistically win anything useful, the only thing keeping me going is that I want to get some value from the $200 I spent.

Your only problem is that you aren't tanking. Doing so combats the ridiculous 166 wall you slam up against since they (still?) haven't figured out how to accurately judge how hard to make pvp for individuals. After tanking you will once again fight lvl 50-ish rosters until you reach 400 points at least.

Unknown

Dauthi wrote:

Kunblue wrote:

I'm also at 350 ish in the ironman pvp and all I can fight is 166's. My incentive to play is 0 as I can't realistically win anything useful, the only thing keeping me going is that I want to get some value from the $200 I spent.

Your only problem is that you aren't tanking. Doing so combats the ridiculous 166 wall you slam up against since they (still?) haven't figured out how to accurately judge how hard to make pvp for individuals. After tanking you will once again fight lvl 50-ish rosters until you reach 400 points at least.

how does one tank?

_RiO_

Savaged49 wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Kunblue wrote:

I'm also at 350 ish in the ironman pvp and all I can fight is 166's. My incentive to play is 0 as I can't realistically win anything useful, the only thing keeping me going is that I want to get some value from the $200 I spent.

Your only problem is that you aren't tanking. Doing so combats the ridiculous 166 wall you slam up against since they (still?) haven't figured out how to accurately judge how hard to make pvp for individuals. After tanking you will once again fight lvl 50-ish rosters until you reach 400 points at least.

how does one tank?

One loses on intention.

DD-The-Mighty

Dauthi wrote:

Okin107 wrote:

That being said, when you are on your way to 3* land it's the time where you get some of the best times in the game. Especially when you start to push higher in the ranks, recruit tokens give you 3* covers etc. These are all gone in 3* land. High ranks are just $$$ for shield hops and 3* pulls from tokens are multiple 500 ISO.

People that should be really "complaining" are those that have maxed their roster and they have nothing to fight for anymore. Sure you will say that they passed the "difficult" part, but what is after that part? What do you compete for if not for covers? I guess it is that feeling of accomplishment mixed with guilt for spending all that time and money that keeps you going. Just for the sake of the huge investment that you did. You can also call it an end game or a "win" and uninstall the game and move on with your life.

There is no real reason to "feed" us with more and more 3* covers and speed up our transition. It will happen one way or another. And do not forget that they also need money to keep this game running. So making it a bit "difficult" to get there is what brings them $$$ at the end of the day. I would like to see more 4* characters to be released instead of 3*. I want to see a 3*->4* transition exist.

Speeding up the path to end game is not fruitful for anyone. Extending the end game is always something to hang in there.

Thank you Okin, and that is exactly the point of making it slow to get 3* covers. It is end game. Like I said those who are transitioning, if they put enough effort into the game and find a decent alliance can move up and a brisk pace. It really isn't that hard to get top 100 if you try, especially for older covers.

Think of it this way, once you hit the 3* bracket you will jump for joy when you are able to receive a single new cover of progress in any event (which is why events for new characters are chaotic). Meanwhile, 2* and 2* transitional rosters can always progress at least 1 cover+ per event. Enjoy it while you can.

_RiO_ wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

If the player base were characterized as a model, it would be a pyramid. 1* players at the bottom being numerous, 2* the middle being lesser than the last, and 3* at the top being a small percentage. Considering this, 15% getting 3* covers makes perfect sense.

The cover population, however, is the inverse of that pyramid: 1* covers at the bottom cover a small percentage; 2* covers do not fare much better; and a disproportionately large number of the cover population resides in the 3* and 4* range. Are you saying it is OK that the top 15% of the player population can source their roster progression from a good 80% of the cover population, whereas the other 85% of the player population have to be content with a meager 20% of the cover population to build with? There is no balance there at all.

That makes perfect sense when a 3* roster needs a single color cover to progress while 2* rosters can take any cover to progress. It should be noted that this is only likely to happen for newer characters, 2* transitional rosters are much more likely to absorb most of the covers in events with older characters. In newer events however, 3* rosters deserve most of the covers as they have likely been deprived any progress for a long time. Perhaps in this respect progress evens out, and that is why the developer is consistent in releasing new characters.

In what world is 60% of a game; endgame?

The entire game is becoming 3*. Endgame is when you have most to all of the 3* covered and your only competing for iso, HP, 4*s and new 3's. There is a huge deadzone where you have all of the 2's you want and when you inevitably get sharded into the grind brackets, you have to bust you A off just to maintain that "easy" 100, just to get a one measly cover out of what? 28 characters? In which you need at least 9 covers to actually make them play they way they were meant to play?

having a slew of poorly covered,worse-than-2*, 3* characters is hardly "endgame" its the middle and its a slow tedious process. its not a pissing contest, the game seems to get worse -progression wise- as you go up the pyramid. As you high levels are so keen to point out whenever anyone claims you have it "easy". New players complaining about locked nodes, mid players complaining about the drought of 3* covers and the high level players complaining about the roster competition stagnation and horrid pve scaling on their end. the game is significantly flawed on almost every level. all these players using VERY different rosters, brackets and MMrs to compete over the exact same prizes. that sounds like a hot mess to me.

atomzed

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

In what world is 60% of a game; endgame?

The entire game is becoming 3*. Endgame is when you have most to all of the 3* covered and your only competing for iso, HP, 4*s and new 3's. There is a huge deadzone where you have all of the 2's you want and when you inevitably get sharded into the grind brackets, you have to bust you A off just to maintain that "easy" 100, just to get a one measly cover out of what? 28 characters? In which you need at least 9 covers to actually make them play they way they were meant to play?

having a slew of poorly covered,worse-than-2*, 3* characters is hardly "endgame" its the middle and its a slow tedious process. its not a pissing contest, the game seems to get worse -progression wise- as you go up the pyramid. As you high levels are so keen to point out whenever anyone claims you have it "easy". New players complaining about locked nodes, mid players complaining about the drought of 3* covers and the high level players complaining about the roster competition stagnation and horrid pve scaling on their end. the game is significantly flawed on almost every level. all these players using VERY different rosters, brackets and MMrs to compete over the exact same prizes. that sounds like a hot mess to me.

And if you have the power to change things, what would you do? You obviously like the game enough to be on a mpq forum. So it would be interesting to hear your version of mpq utopia.

DD-The-Mighty

atomzed wrote:

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

In what world is 60% of a game; endgame?

The entire game is becoming 3*. Endgame is when you have most to all of the 3* covered and your only competing for iso, HP, 4*s and new 3's. There is a huge deadzone where you have all of the 2's you want and when you inevitably get sharded into the grind brackets, you have to bust you A off just to maintain that "easy" 100, just to get a one measly cover out of what? 28 characters? In which you need at least 9 covers to actually make them play they way they were meant to play?

having a slew of poorly covered,worse-than-2*, 3* characters is hardly "endgame" its the middle and its a slow tedious process. its not a pissing contest, the game seems to get worse -progression wise- as you go up the pyramid. As you high levels are so keen to point out whenever anyone claims you have it "easy". New players complaining about locked nodes, mid players complaining about the drought of 3* covers and the high level players complaining about the roster competition stagnation and horrid pve scaling on their end. the game is significantly flawed on almost every level. all these players using VERY different rosters, brackets and MMrs to compete over the exact same prizes. that sounds like a hot mess to me.

And if you have the power to change things, what would you do? You obviously like the game enough to be on a mpq forum. So it would be interesting to hear your version of mpq utopia.

You seem quite content with the game as is. so why do you feel the need to belittle those who are not? Nice bait though.

atomzed

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

atomzed wrote:

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

In what world is 60% of a game; endgame?

The entire game is becoming 3*. Endgame is when you have most to all of the 3* covered and your only competing for iso, HP, 4*s and new 3's. There is a huge deadzone where you have all of the 2's you want and when you inevitably get sharded into the grind brackets, you have to bust you A off just to maintain that "easy" 100, just to get a one measly cover out of what? 28 characters? In which you need at least 9 covers to actually make them play they way they were meant to play?

having a slew of poorly covered,worse-than-2*, 3* characters is hardly "endgame" its the middle and its a slow tedious process. its not a pissing contest, the game seems to get worse -progression wise- as you go up the pyramid. As you high levels are so keen to point out whenever anyone claims you have it "easy". New players complaining about locked nodes, mid players complaining about the drought of 3* covers and the high level players complaining about the roster competition stagnation and horrid pve scaling on their end. the game is significantly flawed on almost every level. all these players using VERY different rosters, brackets and MMrs to compete over the exact same prizes. that sounds like a hot mess to me.

And if you have the power to change things, what would you do? You obviously like the game enough to be on a mpq forum. So it would be interesting to hear your version of mpq utopia.

You seem quite content with the game as is. so why do you feel the need to belittle those who are not? Nice bait though.

Sigh, you think the post was a sarcastic one? It was not. And where in the post was it belittling anyone?

I enjoy the game, know that it's not perfect and many more improvements can be done.

But I am also aware of the limitations of resources and time.

When I say "utopia", I really meant the "perfect vision" of the game. Because it's a utopian vision, it usually takes a lot of time and effort. But the vision is important, as it charts the direction which D3 should go into.

My utopian vision of D3 is the ideal mmorpg (probably WoW?). Where players of different levels can enjoy reasonable progression, enjoy challenging parts of the game. Where enjoyment is not defined by just getting covers, but completing different aspects of the game. Maybe a beginner dungeon, intermediate dungeon and expert dungeon? Maybe a raid? (Of course, all these are unlikely to happen in the near future as it involved substantial revamp of the core game)

So I am asking for your opinion, your vision, because it's interesting to discuss this, and you have strong opinions about how the game should be (hence, the "huge mess" description).

But whatever, this is the internet where ppl are forever being misunderstood.

Unknown

Dauthi wrote:

Kunblue wrote:

I'm also at 350 ish in the ironman pvp and all I can fight is 166's. My incentive to play is 0 as I can't realistically win anything useful, the only thing keeping me going is that I want to get some value from the $200 I spent.

Your only problem is that you aren't tanking. Doing so combats the ridiculous 166 wall you slam up against since they (still?) haven't figured out how to accurately judge how hard to make pvp for individuals. After tanking you will once again fight lvl 50-ish rosters until you reach 400 points at least.

I know about tanking, it's basically losing on purpose. I'm just pissed off with myself for investing in this game. I'm not saying its pay to win but its pay to win for a newcomer . I'm a casual player but i can still put in a couple of hours a day. I did try and grind a pve a while ago , I think it was the iso 8 one and i grinded all nodes every day. I won a heroic recruit token. What I'm trying to say is that, I have no incentive to play, I am not going to waste my time and money for no return.

_RiO_

Dauthi wrote:

_RiO_ wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

If the player base were characterized as a model, it would be a pyramid. 1* players at the bottom being numerous, 2* the middle being lesser than the last, and 3* at the top being a small percentage. Considering this, 15% getting 3* covers makes perfect sense.

The cover population, however, is the inverse of that pyramid: 1* covers at the bottom cover a small percentage; 2* covers do not fare much better; and a disproportionately large number of the cover population resides in the 3* and 4* range. Are you saying it is OK that the top 15% of the player population can source their roster progression from a good 80% of the cover population, whereas the other 85% of the player population have to be content with a meager 20% of the cover population to build with? There is no balance there at all.

That makes perfect sense when a 3* roster needs a single color cover to progress while 2* rosters can take any cover to progress. It should be noted that this is only likely to happen for newer characters, 2* transitional rosters are much more likely to absorb most of the covers in events with older characters. In newer events however, 3* rosters deserve most of the covers as they have likely been deprived any progress for a long time. Perhaps in this respect progress evens out, and that is why the developer is consistent in releasing new characters.

2* players can take any 3* cover to progress, yes. In the off event that they actually manage to earn one instead of being last-minute curbstomped in PvP or are shut down due to node scaling in PvE.
2* players still have the same problem where they need a single cover to progress on their 2* characters, which they are far more likely to work on than a 3* they can barely get covered. 2* players are slammed with a dead-end wall until they can break into 3* progression.

There's simply not enough to work with at the 2* tier for the long haul. (The 1* tier is debatable as you can move past it quite fast.)

reckless442

I think the game is far too stingy with covers, especially when you take into account that not only do you need to get a cover for each character, but you also need to get each color cover to unlock the power. The top 15% may get a cover, but only the top 1% get all three covers and only the top 2% get two covers -- a problem exacerbated by the change so that the alliance cover is duplicative of the lowest cover. So when the inevitable PVP comes around, a lot of players are 002 while a select few have unlocked all the character's powers. Once upon a time, you could buy a pack with a guaranteed cover in the hope you might unlock a missing color, but now that the draw odds are so terrible, why waste your HP?

As for the transition from 2- to 3-star, I've said before that there is a simple solution: get rid of 2-stars from heroic packs. Make standard pulls primarily 1- and 2-stars, with an occasional, low odds for a 3-star, but leave heroics purely 3- and 4-star. With 2-star covers rewards for matches, there really is no reason why 80% of heroic packs are made up of the same covers you get for winning random battles. Make heroics more expensive, say 5000 HP for a ten-pack instead of 3000, but I bet a fair number of transitional players would buy packs knowing they are guaranteed 3-stars and better. And make them more rare in the game, though, as it is, they aren't given that much any more outside of lightning rounds and seasons. It might make that season 10-pack more interesting, and make the season prize a little more desirable, as opposed to the inevitable 10-packs of 2-star Caps and Amazing Wolvies.

Dauthi

_RiO_ wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

_RiO_ wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

If the player base were characterized as a model, it would be a pyramid. 1* players at the bottom being numerous, 2* the middle being lesser than the last, and 3* at the top being a small percentage. Considering this, 15% getting 3* covers makes perfect sense.

The cover population, however, is the inverse of that pyramid: 1* covers at the bottom cover a small percentage; 2* covers do not fare much better; and a disproportionately large number of the cover population resides in the 3* and 4* range. Are you saying it is OK that the top 15% of the player population can source their roster progression from a good 80% of the cover population, whereas the other 85% of the player population have to be content with a meager 20% of the cover population to build with? There is no balance there at all.

That makes perfect sense when a 3* roster needs a single color cover to progress while 2* rosters can take any cover to progress. It should be noted that this is only likely to happen for newer characters, 2* transitional rosters are much more likely to absorb most of the covers in events with older characters. In newer events however, 3* rosters deserve most of the covers as they have likely been deprived any progress for a long time. Perhaps in this respect progress evens out, and that is why the developer is consistent in releasing new characters.

2* players can take any 3* cover to progress, yes. In the off event that they actually manage to earn one instead of being last-minute curbstomped in PvP or are shut down due to node scaling in PvE.

Are you saying it is hard to reach top 100? My GF plays with me and as a 2* transitional she has an easy time obtaining top 100 every event. That is one cover of progress every event easily. Top 25, I will grant, is only cracked for unwanted characters.

2* players still have the same problem where they need a single cover to progress on their 2* characters, which they are far more likely to work on than a 3* they can barely get covered. 2* players are slammed with a dead-end wall until they can break into 3* progression.

There's simply not enough to work with at the 2* tier for the long haul. (The 1* tier is debatable as you can move past it quite fast.)

3* shouldn't even be leveled until they are 70%ish covered. My advice to 2* rosters is to max out a decent 2* team while only keeping the big gun 3*s (Thor, Sentry, etc) as a collection until they reach that 70%ish cover amount. You could shoot for 3*s early and level them, but I think in the long run you hinder your progress by not focusing on collecting 2*s first (since at equal levels 3*s are weaker than 2*s anyways). Due to PVE roster limitations you will likely need those 2*s anyways.

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

In what world is 60% of a game; endgame?

In what world is the population of any game 60% in end game? Where is this number coming from? In any game (a year old especially) there are thousands of players just starting up, and most play f2p. Given this, it will take a long time for them to hit 3* so most will be stuck in 2* rosters for months where they may quit. Then let's think about 3* drop out ratios. I seriously doubt there are more 3* players than any other roster.

DD-The-Mighty

atomzed wrote:

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

atomzed wrote:

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

In what world is 60% of a game; endgame?

The entire game is becoming 3*. Endgame is when you have most to all of the 3* covered and your only competing for iso, HP, 4*s and new 3's. There is a huge deadzone where you have all of the 2's you want and when you inevitably get sharded into the grind brackets, you have to bust you A off just to maintain that "easy" 100, just to get a one measly cover out of what? 28 characters? In which you need at least 9 covers to actually make them play they way they were meant to play?

having a slew of poorly covered,worse-than-2*, 3* characters is hardly "endgame" its the middle and its a slow tedious process. its not a pissing contest, the game seems to get worse -progression wise- as you go up the pyramid. As you high levels are so keen to point out whenever anyone claims you have it "easy". New players complaining about locked nodes, mid players complaining about the drought of 3* covers and the high level players complaining about the roster competition stagnation and horrid pve scaling on their end. the game is significantly flawed on almost every level. all these players using VERY different rosters, brackets and MMrs to compete over the exact same prizes. that sounds like a hot mess to me.

And if you have the power to change things, what would you do? You obviously like the game enough to be on a mpq forum. So it would be interesting to hear your version of mpq utopia.

You seem quite content with the game as is. so why do you feel the need to belittle those who are not? Nice bait though.

Sigh, you think the post was a sarcastic one? It was not. And where in the post was it belittling anyone?

I enjoy the game, know that it's not perfect and many more improvements can be done.

But I am also aware of the limitations of resources and time.

When I say "utopia", I really meant the "perfect vision" of the game. Because it's a utopian vision, it usually takes a lot of time and effort. But the vision is important, as it charts the direction which D3 should go into.

My utopian vision of D3 is the ideal mmorpg (probably WoW?). Where players of different levels can enjoy reasonable progression, enjoy challenging parts of the game. Where enjoyment is not defined by just getting covers, but completing different aspects of the game. Maybe a beginner dungeon, intermediate dungeon and expert dungeon? Maybe a raid? (Of course, all these are unlikely to happen in the near future as it involved substantial revamp of the core game)

So I am asking for your opinion, your vision, because it's interesting to discuss this, and you have strong opinions about how the game should be (hence, the "huge mess" description).

But whatever, this is the internet where ppl are forever being misunderstood.

I misunderstood your intention. It was to foster discussion, not antagonize.That's on me.

As for my statement on "hot mess" I specifically feel that applies to the 3* progression and the meting out of 3* heroes. I guess the over all character and player progression. The issue is not as simple as "moar covers" or something like that, but a multi-layered issue that can be addressed in any number of ways. I do not pretend to know every flaw and caveat in these ideas. they are just that; Ideas.

I had a whole list of things i would love to see changed or implemented, but i figure it would be easier if i just said what my "MPQ Utopia" would look like:

A game where you are enticed to purchase things; rather than extorted at worst (buy a token to get a chance to get BPanther: in order to unlock BPanther nodes to "earn" a BPanther cover) and outright pressured into. A game where there is actual thought put into what to do when you have the heroes maxed. New enemies to test out your combinations and builds on. different Modes and boss types beyond the artificial difficulty of over-scaled, near-broken 1~2* characters and fighting the same. damn. dark. avengers. over and over again. A game that isn't about milking whales/15% and catering the monetization of the game's incentives to them. a game that doesn't resort to petty nickel and diming. Oddly enough almost all of the things you mentioned.

I hear that's how Heartstone is and I had been hearing Marvel Avengers Alliance for the most part is this as well. So i tried it and -at least from a o1-month new player standpoint- it seems to be true.

Dauthi wrote:

3* shouldn't even be leveled until they are 70%ish covered. My advice to 2* rosters is to max out a decent 2* team while only keeping the big gun 3*s (Thor, Sentry, etc) as a collection until they reach that 70%ish cover amount. You could shoot for 3*s early and level them, but I think in the long run you hinder your progress by not focusing on collecting 2*s first (since at equal levels 3*s are weaker than 2*s anyways). Due to PVE roster limitations you will likely need those 2*s anyways.

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

In what world is 60% of a game; endgame?

In what world is the population of any game 60% in end game? Where is this number coming from? In any game (a year old especially) there are thousands of players just starting up, and most play f2p. Given this, it will take a long time for them to hit 3* so most will be stuck in 2* rosters for months where they may quit. Then let's think about 3* drop out ratios. I seriously doubt there are more 3* players than any other roster.

You are confused. 60% was a general number i threw out referring to the number of 3* characters in the game relative to the other stars. As this game has minimal objective beyond "get the new shiny" collecting heroes is the primary function of the players. You seem to be squabbling about the player base numbers. To which i never even brought up. -and in reference to that- They mean nothing to a certain sect of players thanks to sharding and segregated brackets. The players base that i am allowed to "compete" with are mostly like myself: players with most to all of 2*s we want wanting and only needing 3* covers. Cold hard fact is that when you reach that point the progression of the game (Cover gain-Specifically 3*s) takes a significant nose dive. I originally wanted to know how 3* starting to acquire/transitioning to 3* characters can remotely be considered "endgame" as my simplistic definition of end game is "you have most to all of everything that can be gained, there fore you are near or at the games end". technically 4* is endgame. there are WAY too many 3*s to start calling them end game. But i already addressed what the common consensus of what constitutes endgame is, at least by the forum's popular definition.

But if its numbers you want to nitpick over I did some math for you (if its wrong please inform me)

7 available 's
13 available 's
4 available 's
compared to

27 available 's (including 4 gold lazy characters)

that's 50 total
23 non 3*s to 27 (28 if i include the imminent Doc Oc so 51 total)
so 28 out of 51 which is 54.901 (28/51 x 100)

My lackluster math skills aside; that's close to my guesstimated percentage. Well over half the available heroes with even more 3*s confirmed to be on the way with no signs of slowdown.

SunCrusher

Dauthi, I agree with both your sentiments and Rio's sentiments as a transitioning 2* player who started MPQ pre-R47.

Your mention of tanking, though, and commentary about your GF getting top 100 easily leads me to ask if your GF tanks in order to obtain a more favorable situation.

If she does, then that will be why. If she doesn't then she's been lucky to have favorable sharding and MMR and not end up in death brackets.

Me? I've definitely ended up in some crazy-stupid brackets before without any hope whatsoever of ranking well because my bracket leaders for top 100 are mostly all 'pros' and are raking in insane points which, even with strong RB, can't be caught up to. I've completed Final Progression Rewards plus 10k more points... but placed BARELY in top 300 while other people missed FPR completely by a landslide and managed top 5. Likewise in PvP, if you don't get the bot accounts as your opponents, you're more likely to lose points as you earn them from retaliations and once again, there's a major point disparity at times in regards to ranking and progression depending on brackets and not entirely on your actual roster and capability.

That right there is something wrong with the system and if you aren't playing the tanking game/gaming the system game, that is a very real situation to encounter AND my roster isn't even fully leveled like a lot of other people's are.

Personally, I refuse as a principle to tank. Losing because I am incapable is one thing, losing deliberately is another thing. It isn't because I want to be a prude; rather I want to play it how it is without having to manipulate. I get why people do it; death brackets and stupid MMR and scaling is really NOT fun... and I wish D3 would fix the situation so people who are walled off can get out of the situation without having to resort to things like tanking.

That said, I agree that there is something fun about 2* land and being able to DO something about all the 2* rewards and Tokens (so long as D3 isn't always recycling cover colors).

Magneto, Wolverine, and Ares were/are some of my favorites and it's been a lot of fun and excitement to build them out with covers. Thanks to the events, Ares, Wolverine, and Storm are missing about 1 cover each with Mags missing a bit more.

Hawkeye (so glad I never tossed him!) is now collecting covers, too, and it's satisfying to see growth and progress.

_RiO_

Dauthi wrote:

Are you saying it is hard to reach top 100? My GF plays with me and as a 2* transitional she has an easy time obtaining top 100 every event. That is one cover of progress every event easily. Top 25, I will grant, is only cracked for unwanted characters.

You need to land in top 25 (more like top 10, really) and pop an 8hr shield if you're located in Europe and can't play the last two hours of an event, because those are located in the dead of night. PvE you might as well forget about. Case in point; I finished 7th in my global bracket for the current DA Heroic last night. This evening, after returning from work, I've sunk to 100th. And it's not even the crazy last-minute rubber-band race yet.

The timezones that interfere with end times and the fact that some people play the PC edition of this game (and thus cannot play on-the-go during the day either) are a complicating factor you are probably not taking into account here and they pose a greatly increased difficulty barrier. (Quite frankly, I'm willing to bet I'd already have been firmly in 3* land if it wasn't for these two problems, as I can consistently climb to top 10 in both PvP and PvE. It's just holding that position that is a complete PitA and basically impossible.)

Dauthi wrote:

3* shouldn't even be leveled until they are 70%ish covered. My advice to 2* rosters is to max out a decent 2* team while only keeping the big gun 3*s (Thor, Sentry, etc) as a collection until they reach that 70%ish cover amount. You could shoot for 3*s early and level them, but I think in the long run you hinder your progress by not focusing on collecting 2*s first (since at equal levels 3*s are weaker than 2*s anyways). Due to PVE roster limitations you will likely need those 2*s anyways.

Yeah... I kind of finished leveling all the 2*s that mattered over half a year ago. The newest thing there was 2* Torch and because I required A SPECIFIC SET OF RELATIVELY NEW 3* COVERS to have a decent chance at earning more of his colors, I couldn't start building him until he ended up in random pulls or as secondary placement/progression rewards in events. Please forgive me for dunking some ISO into my scarce few semi-playable 3*s so I actually have a competitive edge when they end up buffed for an event...

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

In what world is 60% of a game; endgame?

In what world is the population of any game 60% in end game? Where is this number coming from? In any game (a year old especially) there are thousands of players just starting up, and most play f2p. Given this, it will take a long time for them to hit 3* so most will be stuck in 2* rosters for months where they may quit. Then let's think about 3* drop out ratios. I seriously doubt there are more 3* players than any other roster.[/quote]

Yeah; hitting the nail on the head: THEY WILL BE STUCK IN 2* ROSTERS FOR MONTHS.
So why is there a distinct and unbalanced lack of 2* content as opposed to 3* content, when clearly the largest amount of the playerbase is stuck in 2* land?

Unknown

Dauthi wrote:

Kunblue wrote:

I'm also at 350 ish in the ironman pvp and all I can fight is 166's. My incentive to play is 0 as I can't realistically win anything useful, the only thing keeping me going is that I want to get some value from the $200 I spent.

Your only problem is that you aren't tanking. Doing so combats the ridiculous 166 wall you slam up against since they (still?) haven't figured out how to accurately judge how hard to make pvp for individuals. After tanking you will once again fight lvl 50-ish rosters until you reach 400 points at least.

It's absurd that tanking is necessary and it highlights how screwed up MMR has been. The same MMR problems I had 6 months ago is still prevalent, if not worse.

Dauthi

SunCrusher wrote:

Your mention of tanking, though, and commentary about your GF getting top 100 easily leads me to ask if your GF tanks in order to obtain a more favorable situation.

Yes, which is why I try to enlighten everyone about tanking. Any 2* roster should be able to put 2-3 hours into an event to obtain a 3* cover. Perhaps without tanking this isn't possible? I could see how this would frustrate non-forum players, but this is not an issue obviously in forum discussions. Another big one is starting an event late gaining a favorable bracket.

That right there is something wrong with the system and if you aren't playing the tanking game/gaming the system game, that is a very real situation to encounter AND my roster isn't even fully leveled like a lot of other people's are.

I agree. Tanking shouldn't be necessary. It is a a flawed system since the beginning that has yet to be fixed. On a positive note the story-mode healing meta-game was eliminated so there is still hope.

Personally, I refuse as a principle to tank. Losing because I am incapable is one thing, losing deliberately is another thing. It isn't because I want to be a prude; rather I want to play it how it is without having to manipulate. I get why people do it; death brackets and stupid MMR and scaling is really NOT fun... and I wish D3 would fix the situation so people who are walled off can get out of the situation without having to resort to things like tanking.

I understand your sentiments, and I have had many alliance members who felt the same. They all left, eventually. Sometimes the meta-game trumps the actual game when the system is flawed.

_RiO_ wrote:

The timezones that interfere with end times and the fact that some people play the PC edition of this game (and thus cannot play on-the-go during the day either) are a complicating factor you are probably not taking into account here and they pose a greatly increased difficulty barrier. (Quite frankly, I'm willing to bet I'd already have been firmly in 3* land if it wasn't for these two problems, as I can consistently climb to top 10 in both PvP and PvE. It's just holding that position that is a complete PitA and basically impossible.)

I have argued the PC vs Phone advantage, and to be honest they advantage is slight. I would say about 99% of my play time is at home regardless. Why? When I got to work I work, on lunch break I eat (maybe play 10 minutes of MPQ?). The only advantage is on the rare occasion I am at a doctors apt etc. Even then the time is extremely limited (an extra 10 minutes?).

Time zones are another issue entirely. I will agree that playing during end times is a huge advantage, and only the hardcore will find a way if this is a problem.

Yeah... I kind of finished leveling all the 2*s that mattered over half a year ago. The newest thing there was 2* Torch and because I required A SPECIFIC SET OF RELATIVELY NEW 3* COVERS to have a decent chance at earning more of his colors, I couldn't start building him until he ended up in random pulls or as secondary placement/progression rewards in events. Please forgive me for dunking some ISO into my scarce few semi-playable 3*s so I actually have a competitive edge when they end up buffed for an event...

2*s that mattered? Are we talking Moonstone and Bagman, those should be deleted absolutely, but I wouldn't agree with any others. In most cases, by the time you are finished with your 2* roster, you should easily have enough 3* characters who can hit 100+. That roster provides a ton of versatility and a wide assortment of characters availble for buffs in PVE.

Yeah; hitting the nail on the head: THEY WILL BE STUCK IN 2* ROSTERS FOR MONTHS.
So why is there a distinct and unbalanced lack of 2* content as opposed to 3* content, when clearly the largest amount of the playerbase is stuck in 2* land?

Good, they will savor the game before most inevitably quit. 3* rosters are vast because they are the end game. They make old 3*s easily obtainable as an entry for 2* transitional players. I can guarantee most have Punisher and IM 40 for example.

DD-The-Mighty wrote:

You are confused. 60% was a general number i threw out referring to the number of 3* characters in the game relative to the other stars. As this game has minimal objective beyond "get the new shiny" collecting heroes is the primary function of the players. You seem to be squabbling about the player base numbers. To which i never even brought up. -and in reference to that- They mean nothing to a certain sect of players thanks to sharding and segregated brackets. The players base that i am allowed to "compete" with are mostly like myself: players with most to all of 2*s we want wanting and only needing 3* covers. Cold hard fact is that when you reach that point the progression of the game (Cover gain-Specifically 3*s) takes a significant nose dive. I originally wanted to know how 3* starting to acquire/transitioning to 3* characters can remotely be considered "endgame" as my simplistic definition of end game is "you have most to all of everything that can be gained, there fore you are near or at the games end". technically 4* is endgame. there are WAY too many 3*s to start calling them end game. But i already addressed what the common consensus of what constitutes endgame is, at least by the forum's popular definition.

But if its numbers you want to nitpick over I did some math for you (if its wrong please inform me)

7 available 's
13 available 's
4 available 's
compared to

27 available 's (including 4 gold lazy characters)

that's 50 total
23 non 3*s to 27 (28 if i include the imminent Doc Oc so 51 total)
so 28 out of 51 which is 54.901 (28/51 x 100)

My lackluster math skills aside; that's close to my guesstimated percentage. Well over half the available heroes with even more 3*s confirmed to be on the way with no signs of slowdown.

More 3*s are good. That is end game. Have you read the recent forum posts from all the 3*s about adding the newer characters (she-hulk+, though most have already gotten her through events alone) to heroic tokens? There really isnt much for us anymore except to wait for new characters in events. Many are phasing out or quitting due to lack of content while D3 desperately tries to pump them out. It seems like 1/5 events have a character we even need.

4*s? The only 4* we likely won't have is Nick, the others have been out since practically the beginning. Easily obtainable since then too.