An Analysis of Powered-Up Characters in Versus

NorthernPolarity

So after reading a lot of misguided comments on this feature, I've decided to write an analysis of what Demiurge seems to be going for, and why I think it's better for the game in general.

Background Information

How it is right now - Only featured character is buffed for each PvP. While this should mean that you should build your team around the featured character, the truth is that some characters are so far ahead of the curve (Ares / OBW, LazyThor, etc), it doesn't matter at all who the featured is: you're going to bring your 2 best guys regardless of who it is (XF / GT, LazyThor / Hood, Ares / OBW)

The changes now make it so that certain characters get a buff in PvP that essentially put them into the next star tier range - to put it simply:
Buffed 1* Character = Unbuffed 2* Character
Buffed 2* Character = Unbuffed 3* Character
Buffed 3* Character = Unbuffed 4* Character
Buffed 4* Character = 30-50% better than Unbuffed 4* Character

Now, this is the IDEALIZED version of what its supposed to do. Obviously some characters are so bad that this isn't what is actually the case, but I'll go into that later, and for now lets assume that this is the case. So based on the facts, one simple fact should arise: if you have the buffed characters for the week, your team is now as strong as the next star tier,

But NP, 4*s cost more than double the iso of 3*s. What's the point of even transitioning to 4*s when some 3* player whose only played for 3 months is going to have a team as good as my beloved XF / GT?

This is the type of thinking that I've been seeing on the forums, and frankly it doesn't make sense if you think about it. Easy example. Let's say its the current situation for Torch's PvP: Fury is the buffed 4*, Patch Loki are among the buffed 3*.
Joe 3* Player has Patch / Loki as his only maxed 3*s.
Spike 4* Player has XF / GT has his maxed 4*s.

For this event, Joe can compete with Spike because the buffs make it so that his team is as good as Spike's unbuffed 4*s. But what about next event? Joe's back to using his unbuffed Patch / Loki while you still have XF at the 4* level. The point is that the buffs are temporary, and that while Joe can compete for one PvP at the 4* tier, he can't compete with Spike at the 4* tier in all PvPs, and that means that Spike has a HUGE advantage over Joe over time.

But NP, what if they have all the 3* characters maxed? Then a filthy 3* player is going to be able to compete with my XF / GT all the time!

And that's a problem? Someone who has invested in EVERY SINGLE 3* CHARACTER doesn't get the right to compete with you, who might ONLY have XF / GT maxed and no one else? Well I'm sorry if you feel like having 2 4*s somehow makes you entitled to stomp over someone who has collected 30 different 3* characters and spend way more iso than you maxing them out in the first place. This is actually a huge boon to rewarding people who take the time to flesh out their rosters. While the guy who maxed out Daken / Torch / etc in 2* land right now is not rewarded at all because Ares / OBW is just better in PvP, if those guys are sometimes buffed to 3* land, then all of the sudden the guy who spent the iso maxing Daken / Torch has an advantage from time to time, and thats exactly what he should have given his investment! Not to mention that when your XF / GT comes, you'll have an advantage over the 3* buffed characters as well. A guy with all the 4* covers maxed is obviously a star tier above the 3* guy as well.

Okay, but now the transition is ruined. Why would I bother leveling any 4* characters when I can level 3*s instead?

X-Force is as good as any buffed 3* character right now. So if your choice is to either A. level X-Force who will be at the 4* level in 100% of PvPs, or B. Level 3 3*s who will be at the 4* level in say 50% of PvPs, why would you waste your iso on the 3*s and only have a 4* character half the time when you can invest it in X-Force and have a 4* character 100% of the time? It's obviously always better to have the 4* than it is to have the 3*.

So you're telling me that I should put iso into Elektra instead of 3*s? That's stupid because Elektra is obviously a lot worse than the good buffed 3*s. This system sucks.

This system doesn't suck, Demiurge just sucks at making 4*s that are worth investing in. As long as an unbuffed 4* = a buffed 3* which is what the system was going for initially, it always makes sense to invest in the 4*. This falls apart when the 4* isn't as good, but that's because of character balance, not the system. The solution isn't to get rid of the system, it's to buff the underpowered 4*s so this assumption holds.

Expand my roster? Invest in more characters? This sounds like a cash grab, just like how nerfing 4or is a cash grab because they want players to buy professor X!

By that logic, literally anything that Demiurge does at ALL balance wise is considered a cash grab. Nerf a character? Cash grab because they want to sell more covers in other characters. Buff a character? Cash grab because they want to sell more covers of that character. Change the PvP system? Cash grab because they want players to pay more money to invest in their rosters. I hope you get the point about how stupid this sounds. Give me a balance change that ISNT a cash grab, because any change that betters the balance of the game can inevitably be twisted into some ridiculous complaint about being a cash grab because of how it changes the meta.

TLDR

This system encourages roster diversity and the use of more than the power 2 characters in PvP. Veterans still have a distinct advantage over 3* players, and while things are still equalized moreso than they were before, there's obviously clear advantages in progressing across tiers. This also makes it EXTREMELY obvious about which 4* characters are underpowered (if no one is using unbuffed or even buffed elektra over a buffed 3*, which is going to happen, it's pretty obvious that elektra sucks) and gives the devs that beloved data that they want to enact balance changes. The hope of having a not stale metagame is alive assuming that the devs actually buff the other 4*s and make this unbuffed 4* = buffed 3* clause a reality.

SnowcaTT

Extremely clear which 4*'s are underpowered indeed - it's going to be all of them pretty soon, right? Thor going down, and Devspeak makes it sound like X-Force is on the soon-to-nerf list. I've been in total agreement that 4*'s should be vastly better than 3*'s - it just doesn't sound like that is their plan.

I assume most people go for max on the "best" 3*'s right away, let's say 7-9 of them. This first round they took four really good ones (LT/Patch/Loki/Hood), but if you have maybe 8 maxed you are likely to get about 2 of them buffed each rotation. That seems like a better plan to spend resources on -IF- 4*'s remain at (or are moved to) a lower quality. I don't have a 4* roster, but I would guess I'd be using the four good buffed 3*'s over most maxed 4*'s during this event. Even if the 4*'s are buffed - is a buffed Starlord going to be much better than any of the good buffed 3*'s this time?

NorthernPolarity

SnowcaTT wrote:

Extremely clear which 4*'s are underpowered indeed - it's going to be all of them pretty soon, right? Thor going down, and Devspeak makes it sound like X-Force is on the soon-to-nerf list. I've been in total agreement that 4*'s should be vastly better than 3*'s - it just doesn't sound like that is their plan.

I assume most people go for max on the "best" 3*'s right away, let's say 7-9 of them. This first round they took four really good ones (LT/Patch/Loki/Hood), but if you have maybe 8 maxed you are likely to get about 2 of them buffed each rotation. That seems like a better plan to spend resources on -IF- 4*'s remain at (or are moved to) a lower quality. I don't have a 4* roster, but I would guess I'd be using the four good buffed 3*'s over most maxed 4*'s during this event. Even if the 4*'s are buffed - is a buffed Starlord going to be much better than any of the good buffed 3*'s this time?

Hopefully this system makes game balance painfully obvious for the devs. My comments are mostly based on the assumption that a buffed 3* = an unbuffed 4* in terms of balance, and with outliers such as LazyThor and IF (who are obviously too good for 3*s, and look, that's actually relevant to 4* players now!) being too good for 3*s and basically every single 4* except X-Force being too weak for 4*s, the current state of the game clearly is far from ideal.

This new system works pretty well for the game IF the developers can make a buffed 3* = an unbuffed 4* for the most part, so fix that and everything is good.

Unknown

With the way you explained it, I can't really argue with you.

I do like mpq is trying things.

To me this makes the timing of the 4or nerf make sense. This new system only works because 4or was nerfed. I do not think it would be as successful otherwise.

GuntherBlobel

Good analysis.

The 3* game is where MPQ shines, so I hope that more people delve deep into it and enjoy it, instead of trying to skip past it. For those already deep in the 4* game, this will give them a reason to level StarLord or dust off Fury every couple weeks. I wish this had been done earlier.

Arondite

This is, very possibly, the best post I've ever read on these forums.

Carnage_78

The changes will definitely change the dynamic of things in PvP which is really not a bad thing. Every now & then the event will be harder or easier depending on your roster which should bring diversity to the game we each play instead of always playing within our comfort zone of the same team over & over again.

Although established players like myself might be uneasy with the change saying "I've push through my transition so why am I still fighting people with rosters?" the thing is that we might also break through the wall once in a while & that is a truly cool thing!

Personally, I just recently began to score above 700 with a core team of / ...but the real reason I score this much is not my go to team but rather my diversified roster that is becoming stronger everyday which means that most of the time I don't rely on a weak third member anymore. I am only missing & in land so my previous hoarding of characters at all levels (I still have a maxed rainbow team of / / & 9 maxed ) will really pay off now!

It was already helping me a lot by being able to get the Deadpool Daily Quest extra covers & Iso-8 almost everyday but now it will bring an extra bonus to my PvP competition as well.

So, to my own question of "Why am I fighting land still?" I shall answer "Well, I can use my own boosted characters as well to help me climb over them & then switch to my boosted to carry on higher after that!"...I might actually use less health packs or at least push longer with more fights since I will be able to use different characters during my climb depending on each enemy team.

It is undiscovered country as I won't be able to rely solely on my core team anymore so I am not too comfortable with anything that changes the ecosystem now that I just made it to a good competition level...but I think that in the end I will do well & most importantly I will get even more fun out of this game!

Unknown

Lerysh wrote:

It's OK ish, and they chose an interesting test pallette. But I feel like this unfairly punishes those of use with 270s, because 280 3* Thor is way better than any existing 4*. a 270 XF, and Thor for that matter, costs way way too much to consider benching them for flavor of the week. Although I guess if you have a 270 Fury you are alright. I was sad to see my Fury buffed from 70 to 75, so it is definitely no longer linear 3 for 2 progression.

I dunno, sometimes I think the Devs go around in circles on if they want 4*s to be a competitive edge vs shiny roster badges.

I'm going to basically go back on this statement because you are right, adding characters who can hang with them doesn't diminish the value of having a 4*. It just means I get more choices about who/how to play and I guess that's good. I do feel like 4*s are moving more and more towards "Shiny Roster Badge" territory tho, and that ain't good.

I am cheesed off that buffed 3* Thor has 4* Thor's HP and puts her powers to shame tho. TGT is now a support character and that makes me really sad.

lokiagentofhotness

I'd be much happier with the newly buffed characters if they'd left my TGT alone - but now there's actually only 1 useful 4*, which kind of makes the distinction between 3* / 4* kind of...not anymore. So no-one ever needs to try and transition to 4* land because it's pointless. And if that's where the Devs are heading towards, then fine. But then don't expect people to keep on struggling to get 4*s, because they're heading towards being completely worthless.

Unknown

I'm pretty sure all those members of S.H.I.E.L.D who have a 270 Nick Fury are going to go ahead and disagree with you about the 1 useful 4*. Now that they are in some kind of rotating buff category, each of them has a chance to be useful, except IW and to a lesser extent Elektra.

Square

Can the complaint threads about this change just get merged into this one? It'll help guarantee they read this at least.

Jim_MatriX_cz

if maxed & buffed 3* equals maxed & unbuffed 4*, its always better to have maxed 3*, as far as I would have more hit points and health packs to use in PVP. If 4* killed, I need to use health pack to revive. I 3* killed, I can switch to another and save my health pack... no?
Anyway, I feel that buffs are too big. 4* should be superiors, thats why they are 4*, no?

Arondite

Jim_MatriX_cz wrote:

if maxed & buffed 3* equals maxed & unbuffed 4*, its always better to have maxed 3*, as far as I would have more hit points and health packs to use in PVP. If 4* killed, I need to use health pack to revive. I 3* killed, I can switch to another and save my health pack... no?
Anyway, I feel that buffs are too big. 4* should be superiors, thats why they are 4*, no?

Short answer?

Jim_Matrix_cz wrote:

No.

Long answer,
No, it's not always better to have maxed 3 stars unless you have every single one of them (which is actually a much bigger investment than 2 or 3 four stars maxed, so it should be better). The average 3 star player won't have all of them - they'll have between one and several. This means they're competing on your level (note, WITH you, not above you) a portion of the time and beneath you the rest of the time. Being that boosts change weekly, it's also very unlikely that someone with a small 3 star roster will see their heroes boosted multiple weeks in a season.

So the average 3 star player is fighting on your level for less than half the season. Meanwhile you're fighting on your level all season, AND at LEAST one week out of the season your guys will see a boost as well, putting you in the untouchable god tier.

So yeah, it's definitely a resounding "no".

Unknown

NorthernPolarity wrote:

Buffed 1* Character = Unbuffed 2* Character
Buffed 2* Character = Unbuffed 3* Character
Buffed 3* Character = Unbuffed 4* Character
Buffed 4* Character = 30-50% better than Unbuffed 4* Character

Excellent post as always but I have an issue with the above. lvl 170 2*s aren't equal to 166 3*s, they are a bit better than them on a like for like tiered comparison. When you come to buffed 3*s vs unbuffed 4*, in a post GT nerf world only Xforce is comparable to any of the better buffed 3*s because of the way scaling works.

So in practice it doesn't really pan out like that and unfortunately that impacts most of the rest of the argument to a degree.

OFC that's not an issue with rotating buffs as a concept so much as inequality in star rating scaling beyond their level cap and the fact 4*s aren't all that good for their level (270) on a power per level of hero comparison. While you can argue that's an issue of 4* design and will be fixed I would counter with the point that there is only 1 hero in the 4* tier now who has similar power per hero level to a 3* (which is highly reliant on SS's AP steal/gain) and the only other one who did got nerfed to be below that particular curve (33% damage hit, much less acceleration).

So I see no reason to believe the situation will change re: relative strength of 4*s meaning you have to judge the buffed rotation based on 2 assumptions:

1) Those 4*s who aren't Xforce will not get buffed to a point where they are equivalent to a decent buffed 3* in this system because.....
2) The only 4* who is as powerful as buffed 3*s has ALREADY been stated EXPLICITLY to be above the intended 4* power curve by the devs... so XForce is apparently getting nerfed (no details til they have decided when to hit him).

I have one question though (game is not installed so can't check). Do 4*s who are buffed in PvP get buffed linearly compared to their overall power at 270 OR are they getting extra levels as if you were simply adding them one at a time on top.... because if they are getting levels equivalent to the 269-270 level then they will be getting more health and bugger all damage. So I suppose the long and short of my question is.... does a buffed 4* gain much additional damage? Ty in advance whoever answers.

Unknown

I'm all for anything that encourages roster diversity.

KrazyKeylime

man i have been playing the event, seeing alot of ares carrying weak teams up very high. was using x force max 544 thor 3* but then just ran ares with thor to climb. 3* thor maxed is a monster, 4 CtS deals like 3300 to team and an extra 3300 to target for 14 green . patch was regenerating for 700+ hp turn maxed . not sure if ecstatic or horrified on how good the buffs are. buffed 3* thor seems greater then 4* thor.

acescracked

Lerysh wrote:

I'm pretty sure all those members of S.H.I.E.L.D who have a 270 Nick Fury are going to go ahead and disagree with you about the 1 useful 4*. Now that they are in some kind of rotating buff category, each of them has a chance to be useful, except IW and to a lesser extent Elektra.

I'm trying to level my Fury but could only go from 70 to 115 before I ran out of iso. I'm going to start a gofundme so I can buy more iso, will you donate some $$?

Colognoisseur

I am hopeful with this change because I think it can give the devs the right amount of data to make positive changes.
If this goes from being a test for one week and moves to something a little bit longer there will be clear winners and losers based on what is used.
As OP correctly states in this first week if buffed 3* Thor gets used over buffed 4*Fury by players who have both that will be an indication that the balance is off and the devs will be able to see this.
They have made a bunch of recent moves by not taking into account the way the players play. At least this gives them an opportunity to get their data from how people play instead of how they think players play.

simonsez

Colognoisseur wrote:

if buffed 3* Thor gets used over buffed 4*Fury by players who have both that will be an indication that the balance is off and the devs will be able to see this.

My concern is what conclusion do they draw? That LT needs a nerf, or Fury needs a buff? I'm afraid I won't like their answer.

mags1587

Excellent read. Your argument for leveling the (good) 4* characters, particularly X-Force, is spot-on. However, I think I'm still not going to level any 4* (even X-Force) past 220 for the time being. Leveling a 4* from 220 to 270 costs more ISO than it would take to max a 3* from level 40. 4*s are still very playable at level 200 and personally, I'd rather spend that ISO on leveling up some more of the 3* characters on my roster before taking a 4* to level 270.

Trisul

simonsez wrote:

Colognoisseur wrote:

if buffed 3* Thor gets used over buffed 4*Fury by players who have both that will be an indication that the balance is off and the devs will be able to see this.

My concern is what conclusion do they draw? That LT needs a nerf, or Fury needs a buff? I'm afraid I won't like their answer.

Depends which one is the bigger outlier (obviously LT).