Q: Why so many new characters lately? A: OK, so we’ve definitely stepped up the number of characters that are coming out recently. We’ve had a lot of characters requested this year, and on top of that, we’ve had our own pet characters to work on. We tend to get a bit excited about making new characters, but that’s because we think new characters are awesome! Having such a wide array of playable characters is one of the things that makes Marvel Puzzle Quest stand out. New characters means new allies, new enemies, new abilities! New characters inspire new PVE and Versus Events and spice up older ones. The Marvel Universe is enormous and encompasses an insane variety of characters and we want to make sure our game has that same feeling.
Budget Player Cadet wrote: My Daken, BP, and Deadpool all really need covers to hit cap. My Thor and Magneto need covers to respec. You know what's really nice about releasing the guardians of the galaxy right now? It just became that much harder to get them, and it just became that much less likely that they'd be featured in a PvP or PvE. And then you get this from the Q&A: Q: Why so many new characters lately? A: OK, so we’ve definitely stepped up the number of characters that are coming out recently. We’ve had a lot of characters requested this year, and on top of that, we’ve had our own pet characters to work on. We tend to get a bit excited about making new characters, but that’s because we think new characters are awesome! Having such a wide array of playable characters is one of the things that makes Marvel Puzzle Quest stand out. New characters means new allies, new enemies, new abilities! New characters inspire new PVE and Versus Events and spice up older ones. The Marvel Universe is enormous and encompasses an insane variety of characters and we want to make sure our game has that same feeling. ...Do the devs play this game at all? Yeah, new characters are awesome. But stop pretending there's no downside. Each new character waters down the pool of available characters. It makes it harder to keep up. It means another PvP where only tinykitty whales get to run a real 3-man team (which is gonna get real freakin' obnoxious real freakin' quick once the end of sentry makes this a real issue at the 3* range). It makes the already-daunting task of finishing the 3* transition even more impossible, even if you completely ignore the new characters and just focus on the old. Between this and the moonstone response, I'm starting to wonder if you people even playtest your tinykitty.
GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: The game is designed for the REALLY long end game. It's not designed to say "oh, here's <insert 3* character>, use them immediately." If the goal is to have a character playable from the word go, then having a tier level at all wouldn't make much sense, nor would the way they release characters (1-4 covers at a time).
GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: An underleveled 3* should be worse than a 2* character, to allow for some sense of transition. If a 3/2/1 lvl 94 Patch were better than max Ares, why would anyone bother collecting 2* characters at all? Just use the free 1*s to grind PvE until you have enough to use the 3* characters. FWIW, this is true at 1->2* transition too. A level 50 IM35 is better than most level 50 2* characters, especially if 50 is the soft cap of your 2*. The strength of all characters in the game is relative to the number of covers you have, not really the level number.
GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: Lastly, the average player is not worried about the transition, end game, roster slots, etc. The average forumite is. There's a chasm difference between the two. In PvP, people complain that 500-600 isn't good enough for top 100. Ok, there are 500 players in the bracket. That means 80% of the player base isn't hitting 500-600. I'd venture that more than 50% doesn't even hit 300. They're not worried about this stuff. They're playing a match-3 game with characters they like.
GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: There are way too many characters being released right now, on that point I agree. But the reason that's a problem is not their playability at low levels. It's: -They're at a point, with 56 characters + more on the way, that roster spot costs are completely overpriced, especially relative to the rate of available HP. -That the ratio of available ISO relative to the # of characters in the game gets lower with every release, with no adjustment done to address that for new players. -The characters they've released might be 'clever' or 'fun,' but they've done nothing to move the metagame even an inch.
noone_ wrote: This is complete reductio ad absurdum. Why would you ever collect 2*s? There are plenty of reasons, but primary to most people would be because without a 2* roster it would take you twice as long to get a 3* roster due to the fact that you can't be competitive in pvp. Which is true no matter whether 3*s outperform 2*s at equal level or not. Why don't people do this already? Soft capping is totally different than what I'm talking about. Actually, with soft capping, a 3* can outperform a 2* at equal level. As my example was a BP that needed 3 covers in RotP to outperform Ares at 94, if it had 5 covers and I soft capped BP at 94, or especially if I had him 13 covered and soft capped, he would be a better character than Ares except for the hit points. So yeah, don't mix the two concepts. I'm trying to make characters more playable sooner.
GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: If 5-6 covers is good enough to match a 2* under your various scenarios, then that can be accomplished without PvP.
GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: If you dedicated your life as a 1* to PvE, you could get the 3 covers + progression in the following event, which gets you 4 right off the bat. That would give you a theoretical level 80 3* character (under the 10 per cover premise), which would be only slightly weaker than a max 2* (which you've balanced where 94 3* > 94 2*). You no longer need 2* characters, because your underleveled 3* will be roughly as strong, and certainly be able to compete on a similar level in PvP to what 2*s experience now. All it would take is a top 100 finish to get the extra cover, which now brings you to level 90 for a 3*, and if 94-3 > 94-2, 90-3 is going to be awfully darn close to being superior.
GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: Soft-capping is not possible with a max-covered character. Soft capping is leveling as high as possible given the covers owned. If you have 13-covers, you're maxing the character. I suppose technically it's a soft cap of 166, but it's also the hard-cap.
GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: noone_ wrote: - This undercuts the motivation for even getting a 3* in the first place unless you're willing to play for the REALLY long end game, get in a top alliance that's outperforming you or are willing to spend a ton of money. I'm pretty sure that in the chase for 3*s you should want to use them as soon as possible, that's what makes it fun to get new characters in the first place. I would say that comparing a 3* that has enough covers to be leveled to 94 should not underperform but should in all cases OUTPERFORM a 2* 94 considering they cost a premium versus 2*s. One of my points is that they almost always underperform which is a bad omen for the game's longevity and speaks volumes of how poorly designed most characters are. So yeah, can't agree with you at all when looking at the average player. Trimmed this down to focus on these points. The game is designed for the REALLY long end game. It's not designed to say "oh, here's <insert 3* character>, use them immediately." If the goal is to have a character playable from the word go, then having a tier level at all wouldn't make much sense, nor would the way they release characters (1-4 covers at a time). An underleveled 3* should be worse than a 2* character, to allow for some sense of transition. If a 3/2/1 lvl 94 Patch were better than max Ares, why would anyone bother collecting 2* characters at all? Just use the free 1*s to grind PvE until you have enough to use the 3* characters. FWIW, this is true at 1->2* transition too. A level 50 IM35 is better than most level 50 2* characters, especially if 50 is the soft cap of your 2*. The strength of all characters in the game is relative to the number of covers you have, not really the level number. Lastly, the average player is not worried about the transition, end game, roster slots, etc. The average forumite is. There's a chasm difference between the two. In PvP, people complain that 500-600 isn't good enough for top 100. Ok, there are 500 players in the bracket. That means 80% of the player base isn't hitting 500-600. I'd venture that more than 50% doesn't even hit 300. They're not worried about this stuff. They're playing a match-3 game with characters they like. There are way too many characters being released right now, on that point I agree. But the reason that's a problem is not their playability at low levels. It's: -They're at a point, with 56 characters + more on the way, that roster spot costs are completely overpriced, especially relative to the rate of available HP. -That the ratio of available ISO relative to the # of characters in the game gets lower with every release, with no adjustment done to address that for new players. -The characters they've released might be 'clever' or 'fun,' but they've done nothing to move the metagame even an inch. Now, the last part is probably a forumite problem too, and considering the amount of forumites with even 100 posts is under 500 players, this is a (very vocal) minority of the player base.
noone_ wrote: - This undercuts the motivation for even getting a 3* in the first place unless you're willing to play for the REALLY long end game, get in a top alliance that's outperforming you or are willing to spend a ton of money. I'm pretty sure that in the chase for 3*s you should want to use them as soon as possible, that's what makes it fun to get new characters in the first place. I would say that comparing a 3* that has enough covers to be leveled to 94 should not underperform but should in all cases OUTPERFORM a 2* 94 considering they cost a premium versus 2*s. One of my points is that they almost always underperform which is a bad omen for the game's longevity and speaks volumes of how poorly designed most characters are. So yeah, can't agree with you at all when looking at the average player.
noone_ wrote: And who's getting 4 covers for one character per event? Not more than 20% of all players...
noone_ wrote: GrumpySmurf1002 wrote: Soft-capping is not possible with a max-covered character. Soft capping is leveling as high as possible given the covers owned. If you have 13-covers, you're maxing the character. I suppose technically it's a soft cap of 166, but it's also the hard-cap. Uhhhhhh, I think I've lost my mind because I'm pretty sure the definition of soft-capping is purposefully NOT leveling a character as high as possible given the covers you have. Pretty sure you've got the exact wrong definition in your head unless someone would like to correct me.
MarvelMan wrote: noone_ wrote: And who's getting 4 covers for one character per event? Not more than 20% of all players... 1*s have a FAR easier time getting the PVE rewards and progressions, so if you "dedicated your life as a 1* to PvE, you could get the 3 covers + progression in the following event." Check out the leaderboards in the PVEs again.
MarvelMan wrote: Soft-capping is taking a character to the max level for the covers you have so Grumpy is, again, correct. *Edit: noone_: youre thinking of underleveling.
noone_ wrote: Or am I completely confused about how PVE works?
MarvelMan wrote: noone_ wrote: Or am I completely confused about how PVE works? Youre thinking of the way it *SHOULD* work. Unfortunately, I often see rosters with soft-capped 1*s and 2*s in the top 10 for PVE. Its gotten a bit better recently, now that they are basing AI level more on roster strength (although its had a nasty effect on me due to high chars that arent available).
papa07 wrote: The reason why it is a little easier for 1&2 * teams is the buffing. 3stars get 30 levels or about 18% of a lvl166. A 2star gets 40 levels or about 43% of a lvl94. That's advantage 1. Most two star players have lots of lvl94 characters. Many 3 star players have a handful of lvl166 so many characters are scaled out of the difficult levels. That's advantage 2. Low level characters heal faster if your scaling is low enough to use them. That's advantage 3. Those are the reasons entry level players have a pve advantage in general. That said a deep roster and knowledge of working combinations overcome those advantages if you are willing to put in the time. That is why the top can still have many 3 star players but in general the 1 and 2 star players finish much stronger in pve than pvp