Balancing the *s - How SHOULD they feel?

hesjingixen

So after seeing the proposed changes, I began to ask a question which I really do feel is at the heart of several issues with MPQ at the moment.

How SHOULD the various *s feel in comparison to each other. Specifically, it seems like there are 2 main possible opinions on this:
A) Heroes of various * levels should all be equal, given they are of equal level. What makes a 3* better than a 2* is that his/her max level is higher.
Heroes of a higher * level should be better than heroes of a lower * level, even if they're equal level. Being able to reach a higher max level is just a bonus.

In order to illustrate this point, let's compare a battle between the 2 lazy teams. On one side, you have 3* Captain America, Thor, and Daken and on the other side, you have 2* Captain America, Thor, and Daken. Both teams are level 94 and have full covers. Do you think this should be an even fight? Or should the 3* team have the edge? If you subscribe to A), you think it should be a fair fight. If you subscribe to , you think the 3* team should have an edge.

Now, why does this question relate to the proposed changes? Well, most people would agree that the current (pre-changes) strength of XF and 4hor seems to illustrate that the designers favor opinion . I think most of us agree that a 166 XF/4hor combo would beat most 166 3* teams. Forget for a second that they CAN reach 270, because we're trying to compare apples to apples. Now, given the proposed changes to 4hor, I think it puts her back down to A). I think the proposed 4hor would be an even fight at 166 with most 166 3*s.

So, forgetting the dominance of XF/4hor in PvP, what do YOU believe? Do you subscribe to A) or ?

Personally, I subscribe to , just because 4* covers are harder to get than 3* and 3* are harder to get than 2*. Given this fact, it seems like the guys/girls with the harder to get covers should be BETTER.


In theory, I don't have a problem with XF/4hor dominating in PvP because I think that 4* SHOULD be better. My only problem with the reality, is that I think ALL 4* should be good enough that they would dominate the PvP. Essentially, I think that if you have max cover/max level 4*s, you should do better in PvP than folks that only have max cover/max level 3*s. My only issue with XF/4hor is that they're SO much better than all the other 4*s; however, I think this problem should be remedied by boosting the other 4*s, not nerfing XF/4hor down to 3*-land. That said, I think that both XF/4hor could use a LITTLE nerf, but buffing the other 4*s is far more important IMHO.

TL;DR - Do you think a lvl 94 3* should have an easier time beating a lvl 94 2* A) no, yes.

EDIT: And just to qualify....I believe that due to the proposed LCap/LThor/LDaken should win say between 70/30 and 60/40. I'm not advocating that they should win 100% of the time with no damage taken. Better, but not unbeatable.

Unknown

I'd just like to point out that a level 50 1* is better than a fully covered level 50 2* in many cases. And a level 94 2* is better than a fully covered level 94 3* in most cases. A fully covered level 166 4* is better than a majority of 3* characters, tho this may be due to design issues and not star tier issues.

3*s become equivalent to 2*s at right around level 100, which I suppose you could call close enough.

I am firmly in camp Heroes of higher tier should be better than lower tier. There are fringe cases where the very best 2*s are almost like 3*s and the very best 3*s are almost like 4*s but that's normal. In no sense should a 4* ever be considered "less valuable" than a 3* version of itself at the very least.

Balance of Power is the ultimate test of this, where 1* heroes are suddenly all up on thanks to power scaling the way they do. 270 Juggs will beat the snot out of anyone anytime anywhere. At "equal" levels, the tiers get flipped over. And that's fine, for one event, as long as it isn't the norm.

dkffiv

I believe the level shift is the worst mistake D3 ever made.

With max covers, a level 50 1* should be roughly even to a level 50 2*. The 2* can have better internal synergy (like how Thor's red can fuel his yellow which can fuel his green or how Pyslocke's red makes her black better) but raw damage wise they should be pretty similar. Change the max 2* level to 75 (50% stronger than a 1*), max 3* to 100 (33% stronger than 2*, 100% stronger than 1*). 4*'s can have a level cap of 125.

In terms of "gold" characters the numbers should be similar but the 3* should have a slight edge. Its mostly likely this but to illustrated I'd make the following changes, for instance on Captain America:
Blue AP / return are the same but the 3* version leaves behind a protect tile.
Red AP / damage are the same (at the same level) but 3* returns 1 extra AP when the shield returns.
Yellow can be an AP or two cheaper for 3*.

3* covers are more expensive / rarer so I don't see a problem with the gold version getting slight ability perks.

A ton of PvE problems are the result of the different rarities scaling at different rates. It was also confusing as hell as a new player seeing that 1* Iron Man was so much better than 3* IM40 and that 3* Patch Wolverine was worse in almost every aspect to 2* Wolverine. Equally confusing was that 3*'s did less ability and match damage than a 2* even when the 3* was 10-20 or so levels higher. (*these observations are from over a year ago, btw)

Unknown

My balance philosophy is that, as a general rule, when they're at max levels, a Character of n* should be better than a character of n-1* in the great majority of cases. A Character of n-1* with a +50% buff should be better than a character of n* in the great majority of cases.

Unknown

If you look strictly at the Human Torch, maxed 3* Torch does about twice the damage as maxed 2* Torch. Modern Thor is about twice as powerful as Marvel Now Thor, excepting the yellow. Twice is about the right balance. However, Lazy Cap is far more than twice powerful than original Cap, and Daken is a toss up.

I find the problem is the covers make the ranking deceiving. If you've got a Tiny Torch at 94 and a Big Torch at 110, Tiny Torch probably does more damage because of the covers. I think we used to live in a world where iso was very short, and most people wouldn't be able to max their characters as soon as they got the cover.

I also find ability ranking to be 2* > 1* > 3* > 4* in general (if they were boosted to the same level); I think this is more of a result of the 4* making more difference so they get balanced faster, and lower level characters are allowed to be a little unbalanced (Juggs) because they don't get past lvl 40 or 94. I think we also saw that now with the slowest balancing of polarity shift ever.

I think right now it feels roughly like:
1* = 1/2 a 2*
2* = 1/2 a 3*
3* = 3/4 a 4*

I think they've been reluctant to make 4* too powerful because of all the p2w cries.

simonsez

daibar wrote:

I think they've been reluctant to make 4* too powerful because of all the p2w cries.

How about if they at least make them as good as 3s?

hesjingixen

simonsez wrote:

daibar wrote:

I think they've been reluctant to make 4* too powerful because of all the p2w cries.

How about if they at least make them as good as 3s?

That would be nice *cough* invisible woman *cough*. To be fair, all of the 4*s beside XF & 4hor could probably use a boost, but yeah, some need it more than others.

Roswulf

hesjingixen wrote:

So after seeing the proposed changes, I began to ask a question which I really do feel is at the heart of several issues with MPQ at the moment.

How SHOULD the various *s feel in comparison to each other. Specifically, it seems like there are 2 main possible opinions on this:
A) Heroes of various * levels should all be equal, given they are of equal level. What makes a 3* better than a 2* is that his/her max level is higher.
Heroes of a higher * level should be better than heroes of a lower * level, even if they're equal level. Being able to reach a higher max level is just a bonus.

I think this is only half of the question, and needs to be joined with "How competitive should a match between maxed teams across star levels be?"

In isolation, I agree with B. As a 2-3 transitioner I've worked very hard to get my 11 cover, level 95 R&G, and it's kind of sad that he's still not competitive with my 2* mainstays. But if Rocket was a step above my 2* Thor at level 95, then without a drastically altered advancement curve, my 2* roster would be absolutely thumped by a level 166 R&G. At the moment, there is an appropriately satisfying but still conquerable challenge to taking on a team up a star class, and making that task notably harder would make the star transition process longer and less fun.

Making the star transitions longer and less fun is the last thing MPQ needs.

XandorXerxes

Given that I started with only two 4*s out, a pre-buff X-Force and IW, my mindset from the beginning has been that 4*s are essentially trophies. Not that they would be *worse* by design than a 3*, but not to expect them to be a league of their own. Nick Fury cemented that a bit for me, but it wasn't until X-Force's buff and 4* Thor was released that I thought they might be moving a different direction. With her recent debuff reinforcing my first belief, I expect X-Force to follow in the near-ish future. Once the 3* transition is even easier and there are a large number of 4*s out, I expect the game to shift more to max 4*s being in a league of their own (then bring on the trophy 5*s).

I think the way they do the strengths of the first three stars now is about right. A level 50 2* or a 94 3* with respective covers will be weaker than a 1* or 2* max covered. However, using the above example - Thor, Daken, Cap - the 3*s have better powers. So if I have a max-covered 3* I feel they are (and should be) slightly stronger than the max-covered 2* of the same level. I don't think it should be night and day - two level 94 characters should be roughly equal, the more rare character should be given the slight edge because of its rarity.