Weekly 4* proposal

Unknown

4* is something D3 trying to monetize, not a medal for years of service. It should not matter how quickly or how slowly it takes to get the 4* as long as D3 is happy with the HP they got out of those covers. If we assume D3 is happy with the cost it takes to hit 1000 in PvP, then one 4* every 2.5 days is obviously a perfectly acceptable rate provided you spent enough to get it. I'm skeptical as to how they can enforce a desireable amount of HP spent per 4* in PvE, but if they can do it there's nothing wrong even if the pace is as fast as PvP (one every 2.5 days).

wirius

Phantron wrote:

4* is something D3 trying to monetize, not a medal for years of service. It should not matter how quickly or how slowly it takes to get the 4* as long as D3 is happy with the HP they got out of those covers. If we assume D3 is happy with the cost it takes to hit 1000 in PvP, then one 4* every 2.5 days is obviously a perfectly acceptable rate provided you spent enough to get it. I'm skeptical as to how they can enforce a desireable amount of HP spent per 4* in PvE, but if they can do it there's nothing wrong even if the pace is as fast as PvP (one every 2.5 days).

Thanks Phantron for the feedback. One of the ways discussed is to charge HP to access the weekly. For example, 150-300 hp to even do the weekly. I've also heard that shields are actually a very minor part of their income, and that hp is largely spent on packs. Further, there has been discussion in making the weekly difficult to beat, as well as requiring 5 out of the seven 3*'s required for the daily through the week. This serves to only allow the transitioners to compete for these rewards. This isn't a give me reward, but IS obtainable apart from pvp. Further, I can very easily see dropping money on the last few four star covers, as those are the one's that really matter. Especially if you know its not going to come up in weekly rotation for another month. Very few people have the money or willingness to buy 10 4* covers, but many more would be willing to spend to finish off the last 2-3. Essentially, you're earning one cover of ONE 4 star that cycles back around every 6 weeks, so this is not a quick way of earning 4* covers at all.. It keeps people able to obtain something, and should encourage more PvP, more 3 star collection, spending HP on roster slots, and active game time.

Unknown

wirius wrote:

Phantron wrote:

4* is something D3 trying to monetize, not a medal for years of service. It should not matter how quickly or how slowly it takes to get the 4* as long as D3 is happy with the HP they got out of those covers. If we assume D3 is happy with the cost it takes to hit 1000 in PvP, then one 4* every 2.5 days is obviously a perfectly acceptable rate provided you spent enough to get it. I'm skeptical as to how they can enforce a desireable amount of HP spent per 4* in PvE, but if they can do it there's nothing wrong even if the pace is as fast as PvP (one every 2.5 days).

Thanks Phantron for the feedback. One of the ways discussed is to charge HP to access the weekly. For example, 150-300 hp to even do the weekly. I've also heard that shields are actually a very minor part of their income, and that hp is largely spent on packs. Further, there has been discussion in making the weekly difficult to beat, as well as requiring 5 out of the seven 3*'s required for the daily through the week. This serves to only allow the transitioners to compete for these rewards. This isn't a give me reward, but IS obtainable apart from pvp. Further, I can very easily see dropping money on the last few four star covers, as those are the one's that really matter. Especially if you know its not going to come up in weekly rotation for another month. Very few people have the money or willingness to buy 10 4* covers, but many more would be willing to spend to finish off the last 2-3. Essentially, you're earning one cover of ONE 4 star that cycles back around every 6 weeks, so this is not a quick way of earning 4* covers at all.. It keeps people able to obtain something, and should encourage more PvP, more 3 star collection, spending HP on roster slots, and active game time.

While shields aren't a huge part of income, there's obviously a target they try to hit for hitting 1000. It clearly shouldn't be 0 HP and it shouldn't be 2499 HP either. I think when they were left at 1300 following the shield CDs it was getting awfully close to 2500 HP to hit 1300 so of course that didn't do anyone any good (why risk climb to 1300 when it costs as much as buying the cover outright?) You have to check with D3 for the numbers but I'm guessing they're shooting for at least 500 HP per 4* cover given via 1000 progression. Keep in mind that you should not be expected to spend that much on average, because that cost includes the cost of failing to reach 1000 even though you spent HP for it. For PvE, I'm not sure how well a cost of failure component would work, because in PvP there's side benefits for attempting to reach 1000 but failing, while in this weekly scenario it's likely all or nothing. That's why I think they should start off conservative because of all the ways things can go wrong in either direction.

Tannen

I feel that the required character blocking getting additional covers of the same hero in both the proposal and the DDQ is 100% not necessary. Given a good enough roster, you should be able to obtain the reward at the end, even if that is your first cover of that hero.

Here's my reasoning.

1 - It's an artificial wall and it's completely jarring. If I have several fully covered 166 level heroes there's no reason that I shouldn't be able to conquer that level and obtain the first cover of a hero that I actually want. Heck make the level easier if you already have the hero, but at least make it obtainable if you don't. -- This is already implemented in PVE, where the covered hero makes it easier to win additional rewards, not impossible to participate.
2 - Exclusion -- there's a feeling of exclusion when you're unable to get that last reward, regardless of how much or how well you play, and in this case there's no disguising that it's being done deliberately and for no good reason other than to deny someone that doesn't already have the hero.
3 - If I really, really want that hero, chances are that I'm going to buy a roster slot for it and potentially other covers. Why deny me the opportunity to spend money on the game? The people that already have the hero aren't going to spend additional money on slots for it. They may spend money on fully covering it after they get the first cover they need, I could potentially do both if I don't have the hero. Disallowing me that option doesn't sound like a good idea.
4 - Even If I'm not going to spend money on the character and instead just straight up sell the cover if I don't have it, I'm only going to get one cover for that hero every 6 weeks/months anyway (maximum of +1k iso). This is really not game breaking.

*shrugs* Just my thoughts.

wirius

Phantron, I understand where you are coming from. I'm thinking more it would be 300 hp to access. Oh, and that access means you can try and fail as many times as you like for the week. Utlimately charging something will be up to the developers.

Tannen, the required character is to make sure the game still has transitions. First you need two's to win 3's, 3's to win more 3's, then those 3's to win 4's. Its a way for those who have already earned the cover though pve, pvp, or token luck and already bought the roster slot, to then have a way of getting more at a slow, but steady pace.

Tannen

wirius wrote:

Tannen, the required character is to make sure the game still has transitions. First you need two's to win 3's, 3's to win more 3's, then those 3's to win 4's. Its a way for those who have already earned the cover though pve, pvp, or token luck and already bought the roster slot, to then have a way of getting more at a slow, but steady pace.

I'm going to call **** on that. It has nothing to do with transitions. Ensuring that the game still has transitions would be ensuring that you have at least 3 x 166 3* star heroes (Or play really, really well with your other heroes) before you can obtain a 4 star hero. And that, I'm fine with. It's a natural part of gaming and has been forever. In this case a transition would be to simply place the 4* cover behind several waves of level 200 heroes. That way, by the time that you can get to it, you're supposed to have it. Having that cover already makes the job easier, but it's possible to get if you play really, really well with whatever you have.

These are artificial walls. They exist simply because someone said "you must have the hero before you can progress the hero." If you were lucky enough to pull a 4star from a random token, you are now eligible to play this round, if you didn't you can't. Not it'll be hard, not it's easier if you already have a full stable of 3*s; simply you can't. There's nothing that the player can do to breach this wall. It's impregnable and utterly artificial.

Here's an example. It's entirely made up and doesn't represent my current state within the game at all; I've been playing for the last year or so. I currently have most of the three stars at level 166 so my transition should be to 4 star. I don't PVP well. I play PVE enough to get all the rewards but rarely have the time to come first place. I still would like to pick up any 3 star that I don't already have because I'm a collector, but I don't want to really focus on getting covers other than 4 stars because to me, that's going backwards. If I don't have a legendary cover I can't participate in the "once a week legendary challenge". I have more than enough heroes to conquer any challenge that you give me, but I can't progress because you've stuck an artificial wall that I cannot move past in my way.

That's the difference between an artificial wall and a transition. Currently DDQ and this proposal have artificial walls in them. They serve no purpose other than to alienate people that want to actually play.

Unknown

wirius wrote:

Phantron wrote:

4* is something D3 trying to monetize, not a medal for years of service. It should not matter how quickly or how slowly it takes to get the 4* as long as D3 is happy with the HP they got out of those covers. If we assume D3 is happy with the cost it takes to hit 1000 in PvP, then one 4* every 2.5 days is obviously a perfectly acceptable rate provided you spent enough to get it. I'm skeptical as to how they can enforce a desireable amount of HP spent per 4* in PvE, but if they can do it there's nothing wrong even if the pace is as fast as PvP (one every 2.5 days).

Thanks Phantron for the feedback. One of the ways discussed is to charge HP to access the weekly. For example, 150-300 hp to even do the weekly. I've also heard that shields are actually a very minor part of their income, and that hp is largely spent on packs. Further, there has been discussion in making the weekly difficult to beat, as well as requiring 5 out of the seven 3*'s required for the daily through the week. This serves to only allow the transitioners to compete for these rewards. This isn't a give me reward, but IS obtainable apart from pvp. Further, I can very easily see dropping money on the last few four star covers, as those are the one's that really matter. Especially if you know its not going to come up in weekly rotation for another month. Very few people have the money or willingness to buy 10 4* covers, but many more would be willing to spend to finish off the last 2-3. Essentially, you're earning one cover of ONE 4 star that cycles back around every 6 weeks, so this is not a quick way of earning 4* covers at all.. It keeps people able to obtain something, and should encourage more PvP, more 3 star collection, spending HP on roster slots, and active game time.

To be fair, lots of ppl spend more than 300 HP to NOT get 1k points in PvP (I see them shielding away in my brackets and never making it) and for ppl reaching 1k points, sometimes you can manage on less than 300 HP but on average I imagine it's over 325 (most ppl passing 1k probably do so on more than 8h + 3h although that's about what I need with my roster and the times I can play (times you can play mattering a lot) in general).

Also, cover purchases of 4*s is one way that they clear out people's HP stashes (and hope to entice spending money to get more). I know that guys in my alliance have spent HP (maybe cash?) on 4Thor covers. If they start reducing the HP cost to get those covers in normal play AND start letting more ppl get them more easily it'll impact spending. Since it's not impossible to play without 4*s AND, more to the point, of limited PvE benefit to have 4*s I don't see them implementing a weekly 4* non-competitive PvE option basically ever.

While the argument that you would take x weeks to max a 4* through that method SEEM to make sense look at it another way... the ppl getting covers in PvP can also do the non-competitive PvE to get covers. So those times they get within 2-3 covers of a usable 4* and decide to splurge HP to finish them will start to look a LOT less tempting when they can see another guaranteed cover coming on the horizon.

Finally, the devs have said they are happy with the proportion of ppl getting 4* covers which went up a bit after progression dropped to 1k but they said it was still fine (probably cause lots of ppl getting the 4* covers in PvP don't actually need them)). If they add in a non-competitive PvE option then, firstly they would have to make it so the vast majority of ppl can't complete it AND secondly, reduce 4*s coming from other sources.

I'll go out on a limb and say the ppl who really want the non-competitve option are NOT the ppl with the best rosters who will be able to finish a PvE tailored for the majority to fail. If they then made PvP covers a bit more scarce to balance out overall 4* cover acquisition i'll again go out on a limb and say that the ppl who would be not quite making the cut for 4* covers are probably the ppl who can acutally use the covers, while the guys with the best rosters who are getting 1.1k (or whatever they made it to balance numbers out) who don't NEED the covers are also the guys hoovering up covers in your weekly PvE with their monstrous rosters.

In the end this is a "want more stuff" kind of thread, which I can fully understand but don't see the legitimate argument for really. They have started easing the supply of 3* covers through DDQ because there is now a more fully fleshed out 4* tier (although most are kind of junky but that never stopped us going after junky 3* covers so it doesn't really matter ) in the same way they eased the supply of 2* covers once the 3* tier became fleshed out (by throwing them at you for pvp wins). I don't see them doing anything to ease the supply of 4* covers until there is a fleshed out 5* tier (which may never happen) or maybe if the 4* tier becomes a lot more numerous.

Now, on the other hand, if you were just calling for more non-competitive PvE content in general... maybe something episodic, I would be all for that. Not seeing it happen though .

GothicKratos

wirius wrote:

I'm seeing some people who still say, "I feel its too quick." Give numbers to back up what you feel would be just right then to max a 4* through pve then. The current proposed system takes 1 year and 5 months to max a 4* once you obtain that first cover. If you think this is too quick, PLEASE give an alternative. For example, biweekly is 3 years. A monthly 4 reward would take 6 years, and all of these calculations are assuming no new four*'s are released and put into this rotation.

To me, it's a philosophic point of view. It's like in Yu-Gi-Oh, there's that one tier of cards that comes one-to-a-box and it's supposed to be that way. Putting more in the economy might be arguably "more fun" or "better for the community" but if nothing is scared, it's kinda boring tbh. Why bother collecting or building if there's nothing to build up upon?

At the rate we're going, the 2* > 3* transition is looking a lot nicer - building 2*s is relatively easy because of PvP drops, Heroic Tokens, and Event Tokens. Building 3*s is relatively easier than it was before with the rotations in PvE releases into PvE supplementation, then Daily Deadpool with his Taco Tokens, and the PvP Tokens being more attainable then before for 2* rosters. Don't get me wrong, these are all great things, because the 2* > 3* transition is a nightmare, but as it stands, the 3* > 4* transition isn't that hard if you have an established 3* roster - it's been proven time and time again that the 1000 point marker isn't anywhere near impossible - it just takes some time and dedication (and a wee bit of luck). It's nowhere near the cataclysm that is the 2* > 3* transition.

Unknown

wirius wrote:

I'm seeing some people who still say, "I feel its too quick." Give numbers to back up what you feel would be just right then to max a 4* through pve then. The current proposed system takes 1 year and 5 months to max a 4* once you obtain that first cover. If you think this is too quick, PLEASE give an alternative. For example, biweekly is 3 years. A monthly 4 reward would take 6 years, and all of these calculations are assuming no new four*'s are released and put into this rotation.

These numbers assume the ONLY place you get 4* covers is this new handout in PvE. There are other places to get them. Also, if you hand out the same 4* repetedly, its only 13 week, not 1 year 5 months. It's not the timeline to max a single 4* that concerns me, it's that the same timeline maxes out every 4*. That is what makes the pace too fast.

From easiest to hardest (IMO):
Daily Resupply
Buying Covers
PvE Debut Placement
Tokens
Season Placement
PvP 1000 progression
PvE 1-2 placement
PvP 1 Placement

For Reference I got my XF fully covered by 3 Daily Resupply, 4 Tokens, 2 Season Placements, 3 1000 (1300 at the time) progressions, and a 1 Placement PvP. Currently I plan on using all 3 of my Daily Resupply's of Nick Fury.

If you added in a DDQ cover, it would go in between Daily Resupply and Tokens for ease of getting it, and maybe even above Daily Reward depending on frequency. As a benchmark, for just winning every day you get 3 of each 4*, 1 of each color. Starting on day 310 with IW (and you got 3 XFs already, day 150-180) you get a 4* cover every 30 days. So they are already giving out a monthly 4* once you reach a certain point. To accelerate that to weekly invalidates their entire Daily Resupply motif. If it were part of DDQ and if it were attainable by even 50% of the playerbase, then every 4* Resupply becomes worthless. That is not good.

At monthly, then you just double the output of the "Season Placement" by having a PvE for the cover each season, maybe even during downtime so everyone has a chance to play it. This is a pace I can get behind. For people who hate PvP gives a chance to get the flavor of the month, and for the all around player helps in the 4* transition.

If you only ever wanted to PvE, and were a member of a solid PvE alliance, then during the Debut event I expect you to win at least 3 covers. Plus 3 more from Resupply. That's 6/13. If you could earn 1 for a special DDQ challenge, and again 6 months later that means all you need is 5 covers from tokens or purchases to max out at 13/13. That feels fair to me. It also offers a bit of PvE parity to the PvP "Season" reward.

wirius

All in all, the arguments against this are the same, just in different wording. The arguments are: "Too easy, devalues covers, D3 can't make money". So I'll address them all.

1. This doesn't devalue the covers, its not too easy:

This game is about two things, collecting, and progress. Too easy, and people stop. Too hard, and people stop. Objectively looking at the PvE structure, I'm arguing that ONCE you have the 4*, and even other 3* possible gating mechanisms, which could take you MONTHS, you can then began to work on a pve 4* collection which will take you almost a year and a half.

Explain to me how a year and a half to max CURRENT end game content is too easy? Don't just state "it is". Give me an alternative. Does that mean it should take 2 years? 3 years? Further, examine how that time frame keeps people playing, which is the entire point. I'm not talking about your crazy obsessed people, they're a minority. I'm talking about the general playerbase that has new games competing for their time every single day. If you reach end game and find the 4 transition too hard, or costing too much HP, you quit. Why keep playing? If you could only win 2 or three separate 4* covers a month through pvp, and 4* is all you need, why keep playing? I would argue unobtainable covers devalue the need to work for them, and the majority give up. Rareity gives value. Impossibility, when its necessary to compete in end game, devalues the game, and makes people quit.

2. 4*'s are not badges anymore, they are an integral part of end game competition

Check all the top teams on the boards, and you'll notice they already have 4*. I do. I have a near max X-force that I paid money for. It was necessary to keep playing. I have money, I love the game, and I will sink more in later. But not everyone can. Also, not everyone can sink lots of money in to buy covers. Whales still will under this system, because they're not going to wait 1 year and 5 months to complete a four star. But if the weekly was about 300 hp a week? I can see people sinking in a few bucks weekly. People who feel they can make a goal will keep playing. People who keep playing will be tempted to spend money. I'm not going to spend money on a 4* if I have 1 or 2 covers. But if after a few months I've obtained 7 or so? That temptation is going to be higher to finish it.
But more importantly, players need to feel like they can eventually arrive at the end game. A weekly provides that eventuality, though it is slow. It also keeps end game players logging in weekly, if they have the 3 covers maxed or don't care about them anymore. Playing members are potential money makers.

3. This is about carrots and sticks. Show how this is not an enticing carrot. Show how this diminishes other carrots.

The goal is to keep people chasing that carrot. That means it has to be in reach. Too far out, people don't bother. Too close, its not enticing. How will pve opportunities to get four stars at a snails pace, place the carrot too close? How will the opportunity at once a week ruin the other carrots in the game? Won't that encourage people to participate in pvp and pve more to speed up their progress? Won't it cause more people to buy covers to finish up progress they've made over months? And will it cause people to quit the game, or will it entice people to keep playing? Once you start having a few covers, you think, "I can win more faster if I pvp. And now I'm willing to risk failure more, because even if I do fail, I still have other opporunities once a week.

4. You will still be a special snowflake if you buy covers, or win in pvp and pve

If someone ONLY pve's to get 4*'s which I find unlikely as you'll likely need to have done lots of pvp and pve up to this point, its still going to take them an entire year and 5 months to max. If you buy your 4*, you've got a year and 5 months up on them. If you win lots of pvp's in two months, you've got a year dn 3 months up on them. You will still be impressive. You will still whip most everyone else. AND, you'll have the added benefit of the game still being around by then, because there are lots of people less able then you playing that you can feel superior too.


4* covers are only great if you have them maxed. Its the way they've been designed so far (I think). Therefore you're always encouraged to get more.

Scoregasms

Hmm, I wonder if the DDQ addition is giving folks the idea that this should be implemented in more areas than just the 3* level because it is such a great, well-received change.

OP, I understand what you are saying and can see the frustration to try and fully cover a 4* to be useful and what you are proposing is for a guaranteed way to cover a 4* and not just one, but what you are proposing is to accomplish that for all available 4*.

It makes me think if they did implement such a thing, but 4hor and XF were removed from the list but the other 4* were included, would it still be as popular or wanted? I'm gonna guess the answer is No as it's really these 2 that folks really want. The other 4* unfortunately aren't quite up to snuff and given the choice, there's a plethora of 3* I'd use over them and I'm pretty sure I'm not in the minority in that thinking. Fury is one exception, but he's kinda janky to work with (mine is 4/4/4 btw with no cover purchases, straight up token pulls and PVE/PVP Placement rewards only).

I get the feeling that folks want to compete in PVP and the arguments made about PVE are being deemed irrelevant. I would argue that 4* are NOT an integral part of the game, this is only true in PVP for top placement, but not necessarily true to hit the 1K progression mark. I have folks in my Alliance who have no playable 4* able to hit 1K in PVP (not saying they do this all the time, but when they really want it, they can do it).

Don't get me wrong, I'm on Day 111 in Shield Resupply, so it's not like I'm a vet or long-time player. But from my perspective/opinion, 4* are not something that should be guaranteed to be fully covered via some weekly/monthly system. They already provide you with 1 guaranteed cover of each color in the Shield Resupply list at some point (I think for me, this is way way way in the future... lol). I believe it was Lerysh who pointed out the myriad of ways to get 4* covers and I've gotten my fair share via those methods.

I also think it's a little too early to want something like this, the 3* landscape needed it, there are 30+ 3* that folks have access to and with vaulting and sheer number of them, they needed something to make that transition easier.

The 3* > 4* transition is not something that is supposed to be automatic in any way (again, personal opinion only). It's either accomplished through major competition in PVE and/or PVP or paid for via real world money. This isn't a free game, P2W is an aspect folks will take advantage of and those that do put money should have an advantage. They are the main reason why this game stays active and available for us all to play. Yes, there's a free game here for those that choose to not spend any money in it, but they shouldn't be expected to compete at the highest levels in all game modes, you get what you pay for.

Granted, if ever we get to a point where there are 15-20 4* in game, then something like what you are suggesting makes sense and I'd probably change my opinion in favor. But there's only 6 (7 if you count Devil Dino I think) and really just 2.5 of which are even used with any level of frequency. Until we actually get more 4* in the game, this is still an area that needs to mature a bit more before any changes like this are introduced IMO.

One idea that comes to mind is to maybe implement a PVE Season Score as well and provide an Alliance Reward with a 4* cover similar to what they do in PVP. This would provide those Alliances that only focus on PVE another 4* outlet once a month and gives D3 a means to control some trickle of 4* covers going out.

Just my opinion on the subject from a relatively new player.

wirius

Good post Scoregasms, thanks.

I know I would still love the system, as my goal is effective collection. I love having a full 3's roster for bonus pveing, as well as switching them out when needed. Its a blast! I would love to obtain the other 4*s, and its actually the reverse of what you state. I really only want to pvp for a 4* when its 4thor or x force, no one else, because of the investment, and risk of loss.

As for revenue, I've noted that to open the weekly, players must pay around 300 hp. Over the course of 4 weeks, that's 1500 hp. So D3 should still make a substantial amount of money.

I also understand that you're not at the 3* end game yet. When you get there, the next goal is 4*'s, and BOY is that competitive and discouraging to a lot of people. In fact, its so bad, many people just quit trying for them. This is to help the end game guys who are thinking of giving up to log back in each week and get something if they shell out the time and HP. Remember, the point of the developers is to: A. Make money B. Keep people playing so they keep making money. The way I've proposed this, it should serve to fulfill both goals.

GothicKratos

I already stated my opinion on the overall issue, but I just wanted to make a specific comment here;

wirius wrote:

Explain to me how a year and a half to max CURRENT end game content is too easy? Don't just state "it is".

There is a difference between difficulty and time investment. Getting something quickly does not inherently mean it was easy, nor does something taking an extended period of time to attain automatically mean it's hard to do. I feel like a lot of people forget that MPQ is a mobile game - it's not meant to be consumed like a console or PC game - there isn't an endgame, there is no endgame content, there is no final boss, there is little-to-no narrative (and none of the narrative is important). Mobile games are timesinks. Angry Birds isn't about end game content. Candy Crush isn't about end game content. Clash of Clans isn't about end game content. Farmville isn't about end game content. The entire pull of these games is they're easy to pick up and just play, they require minimal time investment to play casually, and there is a vague sense of progression for people to latch onto and feel good about "accomplishing something". There's no final boss we're grinding for, there's no ultimate raid we're training for, and there's no perfect gear to earn - there is no endgame - there is a vague sense of progression so when you play and you earn something, you feel like you're "doing something".

wirius

GothicKratos wrote:

I already stated my opinion on the overall issue, but I just wanted to make a specific comment here;

wirius wrote:

Explain to me how a year and a half to max CURRENT end game content is too easy? Don't just state "it is".

There is a difference between difficulty and time investment. Getting something quickly does not inherently mean it was easy, nor does something taking an extended period of time to attain automatically mean it's hard to do. I feel like a lot of people forget that MPQ is a mobile game - it's not meant to be consumed like a console or PC game - there isn't an endgame, there is no endgame content, there is no final boss, there is little-to-no narrative (and none of the narrative is important). Mobile games are timesinks. Angry Birds isn't about end game content. Candy Crush isn't about end game content. Clash of Clans isn't about end game content. Farmville isn't about end game content. The entire pull of these games is they're easy to pick up and just play, they require minimal time investment to play casually, and there is a vague sense of progression for people to latch onto and feel good about "accomplishing something". There's no final boss we're grinding for, there's no ultimate raid we're training for, and there's no perfect gear to earn - there is no endgame - there is a vague sense of progression so when you play and you earn something, you feel like you're "doing something".

You actually agree with me here. I've noted that more 4*'s will be released, about one every 2 months. Of course you'll never max out. What keeps people going is the opportunity to earn more, to chase the carrot. Currently, when you hit a mostly max roster, the jump to obtain 4*'s can seem insurmountable. The only viable way at this point is hitting 1k points in pvp, and that's quite expensive. A weekly keeps people coming back. It keeps making them spend a certain amount of HP. Hey, I don't mind spending 300 hp a week. Then one month later, theyv'e spent about 1800 hp, almost like a subscription. The point of the weekly is not "to get stuff". Its to keep people coming back each week who have an end 3* roster. Its to continue that sense of progression (although slow) and discourage the wall that make 4* transitioner's quit.

Unknown

I have to agree with wirius' tenacious points.

I like this game a lot. I joined the race for 4* Thor when she was released and I lost, rather badly with way too many HP sunk for missing my goals. So mid December, I quit. i simply did not have the real life time to devote to a "mobile" game to get what I wanted out of it. What made me load up MPQ and start playing again? DDQ literally no other reason. They made an avenue for progression that didn't require me to be glued to a screen all the tinykitty time at weird hours.

So to reach the 4* tier you either need lots of dedication (by which I mean time = T) or lots of cash to spend ($).

TTTT = You are the most dedicated and can have 4*s enjoy!
T$$$ = You bought 4*s you can also go play at highest levels, thank you for supporting the game!
TTT = Silly F2P why should you earn the best rewards?
TT$ = Filthy Casuals no soup for you but we will still take your few dollars a month.
T$$ = You bought a 42 pack hoping to get Goddess covers? Oh dear...

My point is MPQ wants everyone to put one or more $ next to their name no matter how much time they spend playing the game. If there were a system that I could eventually earn 4* rewards like this I would absolutely feel great about buying the last few covers of good characters knowing they will get used. If I don't think I can ever get close or it will take years then I see no point in buying anything....

I think this would be a great idea. The rate whether weekly or monthly or whatever is entirely up to the devs, if you think the suggested rate is off that does not make it a poor suggestion, it is just one of the variables the dev/publisher can adjust as they see fit. If you think it is too soon to implement something like this, then great, lets keep suggesting it and maybe it will be implemented right when, or possibly even before it is needed to keep players from losing interest. Its not like the Devs have ever seen a forum post and said great idea we will implement that ~tomorrow!~ Even if they started working on it now it might be months before the players would see anything.

At its core there is a ton of potential with this idea. As with everything the specifics will need some behind the scenes work but this could be really awesome for the people who love the game but can't devote themselves to it.

Unknown

I see this as an easy solution:
Daily DP points accumalate during the week. If you had all 7 dailies maxed, you get a 4* as a progression reward.

You will need 7 3*s to get it, so it would make sense progression and monetization wise as well.

Raffoon

The OP's system is a great idea. There are plenty of people who would spend money to buy the last few covers for a 4*. Many fewer would spend the money to fully cover one. More people, and more active people = more money.

Another point is in regard to progress. Right now, if you have a few 3*s maxed and an xforce, you can either spend giant amounts of time or giant amounts of money to progress. There's little room in between. Continuing to play at anything less than hardcore levels at that point will net you nothing, which leads to people quitting.

A weekly event that cost HP and guaranteed a 4* cover would allow progress over a long period of time without hardcore investments of time or money, meaning less quitting and more HP spent.

wirius

Thanks for the great replys guys. Crypto, your post sums up how I feel as well. I hope the devs think about the idea.

And one last thought to those who are reluctant about such a change. This change could keep people playing the game, prevent people from quitting and extend the life of the game with more players. Ask yourselves honestly, if this system were implemented, would you as a current player, feel like you should quit? If not, perhaps your reluctance in such a system is unfounded.

Unknown

If such a system were implemented, a whale might feel the need to quit. How would you feel if you spent thousands of dollars in token packs to get a 4* and then d3 decided to give them away for free? What is there for whales to spend on once they're getting free 4* covers every week? Or what if you're a f2p player and you worked like crazy to get these 4* covers, only for every player who's played 5 months to start getting them easily?

In the 3* end game, you get 4* covers for free in 5 ways.
1. PVE releases
2. PVP 1000 progression.
3. Saving up HP to buy covers.
4. Daily rewards.
5. Lucky token pulls.

Some people are treating the game as if there's no way to get 4*'s but really, it's just not coming as fast as they would like. If you're REALLY in the 3* end game, you should be able to get a 4* cover EVERY 2-3 days! Hit 1000 in PVP. This is more than twice the number of 4* covers already available compared to a Deadpool Weekly Quest. If you haven't figured out how to do that, then either you need to build up your roster more or improve your PVP strategy.

Unknown

daibar wrote:

If such a system were implemented, a whale might feel the need to quit. How would you feel if you spent thousands of dollars in token packs to get a 4* and then d3 decided to give them away for free? What is there for whales to spend on once they're getting free 4* covers every week? Or what if you're a f2p player and you worked like crazy to get these 4* covers, only for every player who's played 5 months to start getting them easily?

In the 3* end game, you get 4* covers for free in 5 ways.
1. PVE releases
2. PVP 1000 progression.
3. Saving up HP to buy covers.
4. Daily rewards.
5. Lucky token pulls.

Some people are treating the game as if there's no way to get 4*'s but really, it's just not coming as fast as they would like. If you're REALLY in the 3* end game, you should be able to get a 4* cover EVERY 2-3 days! Hit 1000 in PVP. This is more than twice the number of 4* covers already available compared to a Deadpool Weekly Quest. If you haven't figured out how to do that, then either you need to build up your roster more or improve your PVP strategy.

In reply to your list...

1. Occurs only once, and is generally considered a horrendous nightmare. Requires insane amounts of time to acquire.
2. Valid, this strategy works, and is one of the best ways to get 4* covers. Must wait a minimum of 60 days before repeat covers are available again with 7 4*s in the rotation.
3. Also works, though shooting for 1000 is often cheaper. But likewise using method #2 makes it harder to save up for #3
4. Yep there are 4*s in the dailies. Each cover only once, and most have not even been added to the list yet.
5. Completely random, utterly unreliable.

Lets be hypothetical for a moment.
New 4* is released. You are inhuman and earned 3 covers, and an alliance. Next pvp has a progression at 1000. Thats 5 covers. Every 7th event (for now) will have another cover up for grabs, but shield hopping to get them cuts into your saving up to 2500. Lets say you have already saved up and can buy two covers. Then earning each of the 7 remaining covers via 1000 point progression you will max out that new 4* after approximately 120 days.

So to recap, this is an absolute top tier player spending 5k HP (not counting boosts and shields) and still taking four months to finish a new 4* Yes lucky tokens and possibly a daily in there would speed that up, but I don't see how this scenario is perfectly normal and makes sense that the very best players need to wait several months or spend tremendous amounts to "earn" a new character. What hope does a normal player have? Realistically it will take so long for a player like myself to get a fun new 4* that there is no point in me losing any sleep trying. If it were close, if it were a difficult but attainable goal I would go for it, rise to the challenge and even pay some money to reach that finish line.

As it stands now, those rewards are for people with more free time than I have, or a larger gaming budget. A weekly 4* would mean I might eventually one day get to play with electra, or starlord, or xavier. Those who have more time and money to dedicate to MPQ are already doing so. My also getting that right an eon after they do does not detract from their experience. You say it would drive away the whales, but this would help them too, those who work crazy hard might sigh in relief that they don't have to go to 100% in every event.

Why is a list of 5 ways to get 4* covers so much different than a list of 6 ways to get 4* covers?