*** Squirrel Girl (Unbeatable) ***

Unknown

Pylgrim wrote:

There are no characters released "every week" they are released every two weeks, with the exception of certain period during last year where the average was more like 1.5 weeks and that was more a combination of external factors (release Blade for Halloween, Dino for Anniversary, 4*Thor to coincide with the official appearance of the character (surely a request from Marvel itself)). Very likely not coincidentally the two characters released that period (Beast and Doc Ock) are the worst created since the early stages of the game, clearly suffering from rushed development to get all the other stuff done.

So yes, rebalancing a character takes almost as much time and effort as creating a new one. We do not want them to rush the development of new characters (to avoid more Beasts) and they do not want to slow their release rate (for many players, new characters is what keep them coming back). That means that rebalancing of old characters needs to be done in addition to the rest of the stuff, but with lower priority, hence, a much slower pace. And yeah 2* characters have the lowest priority of all so don't wait standing.

Ok fine, we should receive a fixed character every 2 weeks, happy I changed one word?

Who's waiting standing? I'm addressing a question from someone about huge rosters. I realize this is a silly phone game.

Adding more to the fray shouldn't be high priority. Think of all the people who've thrown away "bad" characters only for them to get buffed. They need to make amends as soon as possible because sometimes these characters are forced upon us.

Pylgrim

raisinbman wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

There are no characters released "every week" they are released every two weeks, with the exception of certain period during last year where the average was more like 1.5 weeks and that was more a combination of external factors (release Blade for Halloween, Dino for Anniversary, 4*Thor to coincide with the official appearance of the character (surely a request from Marvel itself)). Very likely not coincidentally the two characters released that period (Beast and Doc Ock) are the worst created since the early stages of the game, clearly suffering from rushed development to get all the other stuff done.

So yes, rebalancing a character takes almost as much time and effort as creating a new one. We do not want them to rush the development of new characters (to avoid more Beasts) and they do not want to slow their release rate (for many players, new characters is what keep them coming back). That means that rebalancing of old characters needs to be done in addition to the rest of the stuff, but with lower priority, hence, a much slower pace. And yeah 2* characters have the lowest priority of all so don't wait standing.

Ok fine, we should receive a fixed character every 2 weeks, happy I changed one word?

Who's waiting standing? I'm addressing a question from someone about huge rosters. I realize this is a silly phone game.

Adding more to the fray shouldn't be high priority. Think of all the people who've thrown away "bad" characters only for them to get buffed. They need to make amends as soon as possible because sometimes these characters are forced upon us.

Two weeks is still too short. Too weeks would mean that they did that instead of developing a new character which is really not in their best interests. There's a vocal minority in the forums that believe we shouldn't have so many new characters so often, but in reality, events releasing new characters are the most popular and most profitable for D3. They're not going anywhere nor slowing down. Best we can hope for is that they address the cumulative side-issues generated by it, such a roster slots cost and watered-down odds of getting a certain character in packs.

But really, you can hardly ask them to spend time and resources fixing, say, Bullseye, whose eventual release will excite a handful of people who will eventually stop playing him, anyway as they transition into 3* territory, rather than using that time and effort releasing an exciting new character that will be playable for the rest of the game (or at least until 4* stars become as common as 3* are now).

Unknown

Pylgrim wrote:

raisinbman wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

There are no characters released "every week" they are released every two weeks, with the exception of certain period during last year where the average was more like 1.5 weeks and that was more a combination of external factors (release Blade for Halloween, Dino for Anniversary, 4*Thor to coincide with the official appearance of the character (surely a request from Marvel itself)). Very likely not coincidentally the two characters released that period (Beast and Doc Ock) are the worst created since the early stages of the game, clearly suffering from rushed development to get all the other stuff done.

So yes, rebalancing a character takes almost as much time and effort as creating a new one. We do not want them to rush the development of new characters (to avoid more Beasts) and they do not want to slow their release rate (for many players, new characters is what keep them coming back). That means that rebalancing of old characters needs to be done in addition to the rest of the stuff, but with lower priority, hence, a much slower pace. And yeah 2* characters have the lowest priority of all so don't wait standing.

Ok fine, we should receive a fixed character every 2 weeks, happy I changed one word?

Who's waiting standing? I'm addressing a question from someone about huge rosters. I realize this is a silly phone game.

Adding more to the fray shouldn't be high priority. Think of all the people who've thrown away "bad" characters only for them to get buffed. They need to make amends as soon as possible because sometimes these characters are forced upon us.

Two weeks is still too short. Too weeks would mean that they did that instead of developing a new character which is really not in their best interests. There's a vocal minority in the forums that believe we shouldn't have so many new characters so often, but in reality, events releasing new characters are the most popular and most profitable for D3. They're not going anywhere nor slowing down. Best we can hope for is that they address the cumulative side-issues generated by it, such a roster slots cost and watered-down odds of getting a certain character in packs.

But really, you can hardly ask them to spend time and resources fixing, say, Bullseye, whose eventual release will excite a handful of people who will eventually stop playing him, anyway as they transition into 3* territory, rather than using that time and effort releasing an exciting new character that will be playable for the rest of the game (or at least until 4* stars become as common as 3* are now).

I disagree. If we can get 1 character from a certain timeline, we can get another in that same timeline.

Their best interests should be in making amends with players.

I'm a transition player and have been for 180~ days, I'd love a fixed Bullseye since I can't get a 166 team anytime soon. This player, from my other thread, would say the same: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21439#p273691

So you can't call a fixed bullseye a waste of time when both me(180 days) and this guy (340 days) could BOTH use it.

2*s are currently the 'rest of the game' for many transitioners like me. We can't get past the 166 wall and with shield changes, we're doing even worse. You're speaking from a perspective of having access to all the game.

Pylgrim

raisinbman wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

raisinbman wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

There are no characters released "every week" they are released every two weeks, with the exception of certain period during last year where the average was more like 1.5 weeks and that was more a combination of external factors (release Blade for Halloween, Dino for Anniversary, 4*Thor to coincide with the official appearance of the character (surely a request from Marvel itself)). Very likely not coincidentally the two characters released that period (Beast and Doc Ock) are the worst created since the early stages of the game, clearly suffering from rushed development to get all the other stuff done.

So yes, rebalancing a character takes almost as much time and effort as creating a new one. We do not want them to rush the development of new characters (to avoid more Beasts) and they do not want to slow their release rate (for many players, new characters is what keep them coming back). That means that rebalancing of old characters needs to be done in addition to the rest of the stuff, but with lower priority, hence, a much slower pace. And yeah 2* characters have the lowest priority of all so don't wait standing.

Ok fine, we should receive a fixed character every 2 weeks, happy I changed one word?

Who's waiting standing? I'm addressing a question from someone about huge rosters. I realize this is a silly phone game.

Adding more to the fray shouldn't be high priority. Think of all the people who've thrown away "bad" characters only for them to get buffed. They need to make amends as soon as possible because sometimes these characters are forced upon us.

Two weeks is still too short. Too weeks would mean that they did that instead of developing a new character which is really not in their best interests. There's a vocal minority in the forums that believe we shouldn't have so many new characters so often, but in reality, events releasing new characters are the most popular and most profitable for D3. They're not going anywhere nor slowing down. Best we can hope for is that they address the cumulative side-issues generated by it, such a roster slots cost and watered-down odds of getting a certain character in packs.

But really, you can hardly ask them to spend time and resources fixing, say, Bullseye, whose eventual release will excite a handful of people who will eventually stop playing him, anyway as they transition into 3* territory, rather than using that time and effort releasing an exciting new character that will be playable for the rest of the game (or at least until 4* stars become as common as 3* are now).

I disagree. If we can get 1 character from a certain timeline, we can get another in that same timeline.

Their best interests should be in making amends with players.

I'm a transition player and have been for 180~ days, I'd love a fixed Bullseye since I can't get a 166 team anytime soon. This player, from my other thread, would say the same: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21439#p273691

So you can't call a fixed bullseye a waste of time when both me(180 days) and this guy (340 days) could BOTH use it.

2*s are currently the 'rest of the game' for many transitioners like me. We can't get past the 166 wall and with shield changes, we're doing even worse. You're speaking from a perspective of having access to all the game.

I am actually talking from the perspective of a business who is interested in remaining in business and whose staff must allocate their time and efforts in ways that will ensure that outcome. Also your starting paragraph doesn't make sense: "if they can do X in Y time, they sure can do 2X in the same time"?

Also I don't understand how fixing a handful mediocre characters that very people few care for, namely a few B-list villains and the joke version of a hero is "making amends". Transitioning players have lots of options. Lots. Hell, let's go ahead and list them:

-mMagneto
-cStorm
-Hawkeye
-Thor
-Wolverine
-Lazy Torch
-Ms Marvel
-OBW
-Ares
-Daken

Some of them are powerful enough that can go toe to toe with teams of 140+ 3*s. The first two are a combo so potent that even veterans use them to down 395 level teams in PVE. Sure, there may not be as much diversity as there is in 3* land but the thing is that you are not supposed to stay in 2* land for too long. I don't know what that 340 days guy is doing, but I've been around little more than that and I already have almost all 3*s fully covered (except the newer ones) and several of them fully maxed without spending a dime. By day 180 I had a 130 hulk and a 120 Punisher, which, with the aid of some trusty 2*s were already capable of taking on max level teams. Having an improved Bullseye or Bagman would have changed things very little other than perhaps tempting me into levelling them up instead of using my Iso in levelling up Hulk.

I dunno what you are doing wrong, but if you are stuck even with the possibilities that already exist for transitioning players, I do not think that the Devs spending time and resources (that could be used in business-sustaining new features) on fixing Bullseye and a couple other 2*s would magically fix things for you.

Unknown

So you didn't read what I said, I think I'm done here.

---

That's your personal bias. This game is, majorly, luck. Just because you've done something doesn't mean that's the 'norm'. Again, your personal experience with 2* is not an acceptable SAMPLE SIZE.

I don't have to be doing anything "wrong". This game is majorly luck.

Good for you to have that opinion.

And no, its not about me, again you didn't read what I said. Bullseye is still in packs. Moonstone is still in packs. I'm not gonna bother explaining the rest of this because you've chosen to be ignorant when I've provided you with plenty of evidence.

---

So you didn't read what I said, I think I'm done here.

Edit: yey, the ignore feature works on this forum

Unknown

Yellow ending the turn is a big deal breaker. Looks like 3/5/5 is the way to go.

Unknown

itwasafridaynight wrote:

Yellow ending the turn is a big deal breaker. Looks like 3/5/5 is the way to go.

Agreed. Ending the turn is pretty much an ability-killer. Doesn't mean I'd never use it, but it means I'm not going to prioritize it.

Spoit

Ben Grimm wrote:

itwasafridaynight wrote:

Yellow ending the turn is a big deal breaker. Looks like 3/5/5 is the way to go.

Agreed. Ending the turn is pretty much an ability-killer. Doesn't mean I'd never use it, but it means I'm not going to prioritize it.

Yup. I never use cmags yellow, so adding a "end the turn" on top of that is a no-fly. Unless it puts out enough that it actually puts a crimp in power damage, but even then....probably not

Trisul

raisinbman wrote:

So you didn't read what I said, I think I'm done here.

---

That's your personal bias. This game is, majorly, luck. Just because you've done something doesn't mean that's the 'norm'. Again, your personal experience with 2* is not an acceptable SAMPLE SIZE.

I don't have to be doing anything "wrong". This game is majorly luck.

Good for you to have that opinion.

And no, its not about me, again you didn't read what I said. Bullseye is still in packs. Moonstone is still in packs. I'm not gonna bother explaining the rest of this because you've chosen to be ignorant when I've provided you with plenty of evidence.

---

So you didn't read what I said, I think I'm done here.

Edit: yey, the ignore feature works on this forum

Before this derails too far, just want to mention that we all understand that the transition sucks. No doubt. We all get that you're frustrated. I sympathize. Raaaage.

But the devs have to make money somehow for all of us to keep playing this game, and they have a small team and userbase (unlike Riot, which is gigantic). If they adopted LoL's (or Blizzard's Hearthstone) business model, they will go out of business. In other words, prioritizing player happiness and having players pay money out of gratitude is NOT a sustainable business model for 99% of companies out there, especially for mobile game devs who have to cater to users that are notoriously disloyal to dev studios and publishers.

So they'll keep making new characters like Squirrel Girl because that makes them money, for better or for worse. This is a way different playing field than the AAAs.

(btw... seems like recent characters have been pretty good lately and the rumored stuff that they have in the pipeline is pretty exciting. Being happy about that isn't an admission that D3 is perfect by any means. Plus who knows, maybe Squirrel Girl will have good scaling or synergy and end up being pretty good. They are not deliberately TRYING to release bad characters, as they will make less money on bad characters.)

Unknown

Trisul wrote:

raisinbman wrote:

So you didn't read what I said, I think I'm done here.

---

That's your personal bias. This game is, majorly, luck. Just because you've done something doesn't mean that's the 'norm'. Again, your personal experience with 2* is not an acceptable SAMPLE SIZE.

I don't have to be doing anything "wrong". This game is majorly luck.

Good for you to have that opinion.

And no, its not about me, again you didn't read what I said. Bullseye is still in packs. Moonstone is still in packs. I'm not gonna bother explaining the rest of this because you've chosen to be ignorant when I've provided you with plenty of evidence.

---

So you didn't read what I said, I think I'm done here.

Edit: yey, the ignore feature works on this forum

Before this derails too far, just want to mention that we all understand that the transition sucks. No doubt. We all get that you're frustrated. I sympathize. Raaaage.

But the devs have to make money somehow for all of us to keep playing this game, and they have a small team and userbase (unlike Riot, which is gigantic). If they adopted LoL's (or Blizzard's Hearthstone) business model, they will go out of business. In other words, prioritizing player happiness and having players pay money out of gratitude is NOT a sustainable business model for 99% of companies out there, especially for mobile game devs who have to cater to users that are notoriously disloyal to dev studios and publishers.

So they'll keep making new characters like Squirrel Girl because that makes them money, for better or for worse. This is a way different playing field than the AAAs.

(btw... seems like recent characters have been pretty good lately and the rumored stuff that they have in the pipeline is pretty exciting. Being happy about that isn't an admission that D3 is perfect by any means. Plus who knows, maybe Squirrel Girl will have good scaling or synergy and end up being pretty good. They are not deliberately TRYING to release bad characters, as they will make less money on bad characters.)

You're missing the point completely. In fact, it's ironic you bring up Riot as your counter-example. Please reread the conversation in full. Matter of fact, I'll throw you a bone: go look up how long stealth characters were broken in LoL.

So they shouldn't try to make players happy? rofl. I'm glad you're not actually speaking for them, Holy Shuma-Gorath.

Never said they were deliberately releasing bad characters, but its a fact they exist

Pylgrim

I don't think there is a point in continuing discourse with him. For all the accusation of "ignoring" his arguments and "bias" he's not for a second taking in consideration anything we said, obviously, because we're not outright agreeing with him.

Anyway, more in topic, I agree: 3/5/5; the protect tiles of the yellow ability would have to be stronger than LazyCap's own to justify ending the turn

Trisul

Yeah, ok, I'm giving it one last try.

raisinbman wrote:

You're missing the point completely. In fact, it's ironic you bring up Riot as your counter-example. Please reread the conversation in full. Matter of fact, I'll throw you a bone: go look up how long stealth characters were broken in LoL.

You may want to actually state your point in a concise manner, because I read all your posts and they just sound like a bunch of ranting. "The game is just majorly luck"... okay. Is this a surprise to you? Is there something else you want to tell us, besides the fact that the devs owe us a bunch of 2* and 3* remakes every other week? Because that is some entitled ****.

On your Riot point, LoL is more balanced this past season than it has been in a long time. Not perfectly balanced, but that's a practical impossibility for all of those games. Stealth characters in particular are notoriously hard to balance in any game, but balance in general is very, very difficult to do even with a dedicated balancing team (which Riot/Blizzard/Valve has). Dota, LoL, and other mobas have lots of frequent balance changes as FOTMs come and go.

The dev team for this game is much smaller.

raisinbman wrote:

Never said they were deliberately releasing bad characters, but its a fact they exist

This is unavoidable. As Mark Rosewater said, there must exist bad things by definition. Yes, it's annoying that Beast and Doc Ock suck. But I'm not selling their covers because the devs have shown that they will update some underpowered heroes, albeit fairly slowly.

Unknown

Trisul wrote:

Yeah, ok, I'm giving it one last try.

raisinbman wrote:

You're missing the point completely. In fact, it's ironic you bring up Riot as your counter-example. Please reread the conversation in full. Matter of fact, I'll throw you a bone: go look up how long stealth characters were broken in LoL.

You may want to actually state your point in a concise manner, because I read all your posts and they just sound like a bunch of ranting. "The game is just majorly luck"... okay. Is this a surprise to you? Is there something else you want to tell us, besides the fact that the devs owe us a bunch of 2* and 3* remakes every other week? Because that is some entitled ****.

On your Riot point, LoL is more balanced this past season than it has been in a long time. Not perfectly balanced, but that's a practical impossibility for all of those games. Stealth characters in particular are notoriously hard to balance in any game, but balance in general is very, very difficult to do even with a dedicated balancing team (which Riot/Blizzard/Valve has). Dota, LoL, and other mobas have lots of frequent balance changes as FOTMs come and go.

The dev team for this game is much smaller.

raisinbman wrote:

Never said they were deliberately releasing bad characters, but its a fact they exist

This is unavoidable. As Mark Rosewater said, there must exist bad things by definition. Yes, it's annoying that Beast and Doc Ock suck. But I'm not selling their covers because the devs have shown that they will update some underpowered heroes, albeit fairly slowly.

If you believe I am a ranting lunatic why respond to me? Are you the chosen one to bring logic to me? If not you're only wasting your time unless you have a savior complex.

I don't feel owed anything, but if that's all you've gotten out of what I've said and what I want to bring to this game, I'll be happy to add you to ignore so I don't have to deal with the likes of you. There are others who feel the same as me in the threads I've created, and the posts I've made, as well as the reputation I've gained.

I've stated my point. I was answering a question, which nearly 0% other people answered(besides phantron), and everyone decided to say what I wanted was impossible.

Last season? You lose. Seriously. You didn't even try: How long were stealth characters broken for?

And you seem to be fixated on dev team size. If a dev team of a much bigger game has the same problems as one of a much smaller team, then that OBVIOUSLY isn't the problem.

if you know who Mark Rosewater is then you know balance is a neverending cycle. Every MTG player knows they don't purposefully release bad cards or sets, and as of Innistrad, there's been beautiful things happening. So really, your example is moot here. You're positioning a delicately balanced game vs one that is just getting its first taste of real balance.

Unknown

Trisul wrote:

This is unavoidable. As Mark Rosewater said, there must exist bad things by definition. Yes, it's annoying that Beast and Doc Ock suck. But I'm not selling their covers because the devs have shown that they will update some underpowered heroes, albeit fairly slowly.

What he's saying that Volcanic Hammer is only bad because Lightning Bolt exists and if there is no Lightning Bolt, then the bad card is suddenly playable. If there is no X Force then quite a few more characters are playable in the top tier. However a card like Squire is never going to be good in just about any environment and it's probably not originally intended to make a card that nobody in their right mind would ever play. At any rate, a deck in MTG uses 60 cards and even if you have exactly 4 of everything that still gives you about 10 unique cards, versus 2 in PvP (you don't get to pick the featured) and 3 in PvE, and the different format of MTG also adds the number of playable cards considerably. If you follow MTG news you'll find that per a fixed format there's usually only a handful of viable decks at the top level, which is quite comparable to how MPQ is played. The difference is that MTG has multiple and equally valuable format while MPQ does not.

atomzed

Phantron wrote:

The difference is that MTG has multiple and equally valuable format while MPQ does not.

This sums up a major problem for MPQ.

MPQ has only 2 format, PVP and PVE (it's arguable whether there's only 1 format, since its still Player vs Computer AI in both formats... but for the sake of this discussion, lets put this question aside).

PVP values your relative speed of win. Hence, Xforce and Thorina are top tier, because they have good health, or can kill quickly (Xforce only costs 8 AP, and Thorina Smite can 1-shot Hulk). PVE is a little more varied, but the amount of points won still determines whether you are top or not.

If we have a new mode that values defence, say the points you receive is determine by amount of health lost per game, then characters with protect tiles (Spidey, Luke Cage) will become more valuable.

Or game modes that gives you points multipliers when you take several consecutive turns; then characters that has stun or can create match-5 will become more valuable.

Sadly, MPQ has not move away from PVP and PVE format. So its still all about how fast you can win.

I was hoping the Survival "mode" can break away from the who-wins-more-wins game mode...but sadly, they implement it as a node in PVE.

Unknown

Atomized/Phantron I think both of you bring up good points, but I would settle for all characters to just be playable. All playable characters should have a 3rd ability and have some use. Yes, 4* characters will always rule the realm but only a small percentage of the playerbase is even there yet. I don't have any hard numbers, but I'd argue the biggest glut of players are transition/2* players(although I'm sure since this game is old there's a decent-sized 166 level playerbase)

A new mode would undoubtedly be awesome.

Trisul

Phantron wrote:

What he's saying that Volcanic Hammer is only bad because Lightning Bolt exists and if there is no Lightning Bolt, then the bad card is suddenly playable. If there is no X Force then quite a few more characters are playable in the top tier. However a card like Squire is never going to be good in just about any environment and it's probably not originally intended to make a card that nobody in their right mind would ever play. At any rate, a deck in MTG uses 60 cards and even if you have exactly 4 of everything that still gives you about 10 unique cards, versus 2 in PvP (you don't get to pick the featured) and 3 in PvE, and the different format of MTG also adds the number of playable cards considerably. If you follow MTG news you'll find that per a fixed format there's usually only a handful of viable decks at the top level, which is quite comparable to how MPQ is played. The difference is that MTG has multiple and equally valuable format while MPQ does not.

This is true, and MTG obviously is a much different game mechanically than MPQ. But even that lauded team makes some major mistakes (last time I followed the scene was Mirrodin, so I remember the Ravager bans). My point is that simply that the release of occasional bad characters is unavoidable. I'm just puzzled that people are demanding 2* remakes... is there any real incentive for D3 to do so, financial or otherwise? Isn't it okay to have some bad characters, especially at the 1*/2* level?

Considering Doom, Daredevil, Loki... I'm optimistic that they'll eventually buff the worst of the worst characters (and I'm okay if they never buff Ragnarok), including Squirrel Girl if she turns out to be awful.

Balance in a game is ultimately subjective, and is formed by player base consensus of reasonable opinion. How many viable decks must there be in an MTG set to declare it the most/least balanced? What win percentage must bookend LoL characters have for the game to be considered balanced? Is it 40/60? 45/55? Even Eve and Twitch ("broken" stealth characters) at the height of their popularity never exceeded the 55% win rate.

Phaserhawk

You will only see 2* rebalance if it falls in line with 3*. So say the rebalance IM40, then don't be suprised if a 2* version shows up. Say they reblance Moonstone, don't be suprised when the 3* gold shows up. I'm still suprised we haven't seen a gold version of Hawkeye. Other than Yelena and Hawkeye, the 1*'s aren't terrible, IM35 could use a little cost reduction on his blue, but they are okay. For 2*'s we have Moonstone, Bullseye, Bagman that are in bad spots. I could see Bullseye get a 3rd color if and when they release a 3* Bullseye, Moonstone I don't think will be touched, and Bagaman's only chance is if they re-rebalace Spiderman and decide to just cut and paste but for a 2 star version with a few tweaks on Bag-Man. As for every character needs 3 skills, I'm okay with Juggernaut and Venom having 2 as when buffed they are quite intimidating.

Beleive it or not, sometimes you need bad characters in order to keep power creep from happening, because if every character has to be better than the next it makes every other character that preceeded it obsolete.

Basically we all want a solo play PvE where our skill is measured by how far we can progress much like Gauntlet, but without having to compete against other players for top prize. Because lets face it, PvE is just PvP without the defensive losses and having to shield.

Wobby

turul wrote:

scottee wrote:

I posted in the other thread, but it looks like green might generate AP. Usually abilities say "does not generate AP" if they don't.

It will probably not...

I can confirm through testing that she does indeed generate AP.

Trisul

Phaserhawk wrote:

You will only see 2* rebalance if it falls in line with 3*. So say the rebalance IM40, then don't be suprised if a 2* version shows up. Say they reblance Moonstone, don't be suprised when the 3* gold shows up. I'm still suprised we haven't seen a gold version of Hawkeye. Other than Yelena and Hawkeye, the 1*'s aren't terrible, IM35 could use a little cost reduction on his blue, but they are okay. For 2*'s we have Moonstone, Bullseye, Bagman that are in bad spots. I could see Bullseye get a 3rd color if and when they release a 3* Bullseye, Moonstone I don't think will be touched, and Bagaman's only chance is if they re-rebalace Spiderman and decide to just cut and paste but for a 2 star version with a few tweaks on Bag-Man. As for every character needs 3 skills, I'm okay with Juggernaut and Venom having 2 as when buffed they are quite intimidating.

I like what you said about 2* rebalances being connected to 3*s, but the only real one we've seen is Daken. AFAIK, no other 2* has been rebalanced.

Also, speaking of IM... we'll have to see a Hulkbuster as a future 4*, right?