4.3 Characters/30Days/A Cool Million Iso

Colognoisseur

Back in the fall the game gave us 7 New Characters over Fifty six days which required 1.6Million Iso to max.

Welcome to the sequel as now we are getting 4.3 new characters over 30 days and you only need a paltry million iso.

We got Professor X on March 16
We got Rags Blue cover on March 22
We got a break with The Gauntlet
We got Kamala Khan on April 1 (There is a joke in there )
We got Kingpin on April 8
We presumably will get the new 3* on April 15. Unless they try to squeeze another one in.

Back then it was acknowledged that it was unexpected that that pace would have a bad effect on players.
I guess I am wondering why they feel this kind of release schedule is good for the game because both of these release marathons represent a large chunk of time over the last six months.

I ask the same question I did back then. Is this good for the overall health of the game?

grunth13

The devs said that dpq fixes the iso/hp shortage. So I think you just don't play hard enough to warrant the new characters (sarcasm).

JamieMadrox

Colognoisseur wrote:

I ask the same question I did back then. Is this good for the overall health of the game?

No, but it will be good for the bank account to have all of these currently relevant characters in the game when they get a million new users from Daredevil and Avengers.

Unknown

I can honestly say it is fine. Back then we didn't have Deadpool Dailies. That ALONE is netting me an extra 4k+ a day without a HUGE time sink effort. A year ago, getting 4k a day meant something lucky happened or a huge PvE event ended with lots and lots of covers and a high placement. On top of that the higher rewards are at more accessible points in PvP, so without real grinding you can get yourself some decent bonuses.

The REAL issue is the covers and the difficulty of getting them, especially for the 4*s.
- Unreall

Unknown

As long as there are players like us to buy covers and packs...

Why would they stop ?

IceIx saying : We have a new character coming tomorrow, but the good news is that you will have a week off after that...

So much irony...

1.080 million Iso in 30 days is a lot. And so much dedication playing everything too.

Unknown

Unless you have a sickness (like Colognoisseur ) there really isn't any need to have all those characters maxed within 30 days. And even if the 4*s are top tier you're losing almost nothing leveling them halfway or 2/3 of the way.

orionpeace

I think his point is that the rate of the characters is so fast, that you cannot fully cover them or level them and the deficit of ISO just grows and grows with no end in sight. And this recent run of 3 in a row just exacerbates that deficit.

Unknown

gamar wrote:

Unless you have a sickness (like Colognoisseur ) there really isn't any need to have all those characters maxed within 30 days. And even if the 4*s are top tier you're losing almost nothing leveling them halfway or 2/3 of the way.

With the scaling in PvE, you nearly HAVE to max them pretty soon so as to play the Essential Nodes (to avoid using tons of Health Packs).

It's a vicious circle.

I was Top 5 in Kingpin, and the other 4 were 2* or transitioning 2->3* players... No way I could have grinded as much as them.

A maxed KK really made the difference in the PvE, same with Prof X (Hood/Cmag node).

SnowcaTT

I had to stop buying roster spots so I don't have everyone anymore and haven't added it up. Let's see, 60 (61 costs 800hp) and I'm trying to think who I'm currently missing: Kingpin (800), Bagman (800), Yelena (800), Hawkeye (800), Black widow (800), next character (850). [Assuming you have exactly one of each character]

So these four characters in 30 days cost you 3250 HP.

You had 60 tacos in those 30 days. Those 60 tacos DID NOT get you 3250 HP. DDQ WAS NOT the roster spot answer.

scottee

SnowcaTT wrote:

I had to stop buying roster spots so I don't have everyone anymore and haven't added it up. Let's see, 60 (61 costs 800hp) and I'm trying to think who I'm currently missing: Kingpin (800), Bagman (800), Yelena (800), Hawkeye (800), Black widow (800), next character (850). [Assuming you have exactly one of each character]

So these four characters in 30 days cost you 3250 HP.

You had 60 tacos in those 30 days. Those 60 tacos DID NOT get you 3250 HP. DDQ WAS NOT the roster spot answer.

You have no other HP sources? Never win any in PVE? PVP? Don't get any from random daily drops? Progression rewards? If so, yeah, DDQ definitely doesn't help you. I must have the luckiest account in the world.

SnowcaTT

scottee wrote:

SnowcaTT wrote:

I had to stop buying roster spots so I don't have everyone anymore and haven't added it up. Let's see, 60 (61 costs 800hp) and I'm trying to think who I'm currently missing: Kingpin (800), Bagman (800), Yelena (800), Hawkeye (800), Black widow (800), next character (850). [Assuming you have exactly one of each character]

So these four characters in 30 days cost you 3250 HP.

You had 60 tacos in those 30 days. Those 60 tacos DID NOT get you 3250 HP. DDQ WAS NOT the roster spot answer.

You have no other HP sources? Never win any in PVE? PVP? Don't get any from random daily drops? Progression rewards? If so, yeah, DDQ definitely doesn't help you. I must have the luckiest account in the world.

The HP sources haven't scaled up (ok, a slight amount with DDQ) for the last year.

The roster slot prices have not stopped scaling up. They will continue to scale up, and no amount of HP earned will be afford you to buy a roster slot.

Unknown

orionpeace wrote:

I think his point is that the rate of the characters is so fast, that you cannot fully cover them or level them and the deficit of ISO just grows and grows with no end in sight. And this recent run of 3 in a row just exacerbates that deficit.

I'm honestly curious though, is there any f2p game that doesn't operate this way? Where it's actually possible for anyone but people with infinite money or time to "collect and fully spec" every card and have no carrot left until the next release? Because every iPhone game I play sure drags the carrot faster than I can chase after it

Unknown

SnowcaTT wrote:

I had to stop buying roster spots so I don't have everyone anymore and haven't added it up. Let's see, 60 (61 costs 800hp) and I'm trying to think who I'm currently missing: Kingpin (800), Bagman (800), Yelena (800), Hawkeye (800), Black widow (800), next character (850). [Assuming you have exactly one of each character]

So these four characters in 30 days cost you 3250 HP.

You had 60 tacos in those 30 days. Those 60 tacos DID NOT get you 3250 HP. DDQ WAS NOT the roster spot answer.

Yeah I'm just like

Unknown

SnowcaTT wrote:

I had to stop buying roster spots so I don't have everyone anymore and haven't added it up. Let's see, 60 (61 costs 800hp) and I'm trying to think who I'm currently missing: Kingpin (800), Bagman (800), Yelena (800), Hawkeye (800), Black widow (800), next character (850). [Assuming you have exactly one of each character]

So these four characters in 30 days cost you 3250 HP.

You had 60 tacos in those 30 days. Those 60 tacos DID NOT get you 3250 HP. DDQ WAS NOT the roster spot answer.

Time to cut down on 1*s and 2*s. I notice your list suggests you still have IM35, Venom, and 1* Storm. The current roster slot paradigm assumes you are not a collector. Collectors get ****, having 1 of each character is sub optimal.

And in theory those 60 tokens were worth 780 HP or so. I know everyone keeps bringing this up to showcase the devs being out of touch with reality of the game, but DDQ isn't THE answer to roster slots, it's AN answer to "here's some more hero points". Your hero point income should be able to keep up with your roster needs barring unusual circumstance like 3 characters released back to back. Fortunately this massive character flood was sandbagged by MNM sales for me, so I have 2 extra roster spots currently waiting for Kingpin and New Guy.

Would I prefer if roster slots were capped at 500 (with maybe a jump to 1000 at 100 characters)? Yes. Do they need to rethink the 100+ EXTREME inflation cost? Yes. None of that is going to stop me from adding these new guys tho.

Various38

Sometimes it seems like most of us are just trying to fill all of our roster slots with 4 stars. What is the real purpose of a 1 star other than the story and the event that boosts everyone to the same level?

Unknown

Colognoisseur wrote:

I ask the same question I did back then. Is this good for the overall health of the game?

I agree with everything you say but my biggest concern is about real content
and releasign a new character every week is not new content
Are you tired of playing the same 5-6 events 100 times? It's really boring, and giving me 80 characters to play the same events (even consider some really suck like Heroics), is probably going to kill the game eventually

SnowcaTT

Lerysh wrote:

Time to cut down on 1*s and 2*s. I notice your list suggests you still have IM35, Venom, and 1* Storm. The current roster slot paradigm assumes you are not a collector. Collectors get ****, having 1 of each character is sub optimal.

I was a collector before roster spots got out of hand for HP. Sixty was the most I could stomach.

Whoops, Storm is the one I forgot about, I stared at my three remaining one stars (Venom is next to go) and tried to think about which ones I got rid of.

Sold my first fully leveled 2* when MMN went on sale - it was a really, really hard button press. But it will make subsequent ones easier. Sold Bullseye to put temp MMN's back in until they aren't worth HP.

Back to OP: this is simply HP costs, which are the -initial- cost of getting folks on your roster.

The -second- true cost is trying to get the covers. Shoot, Grocket just went to purgatory without a yellow cover PVP ever being offered, I wonder how long it will be before Mystique or Gamorra get their Black chance. There are so many 3*'s now that it really is difficult to get them covered, the events that feature them are few and far in between. DDQ -does- help a bit, but it is very, very slow to do so.

And that's not even 4*, try to get those suckers covered, even if you can hit 1K every time. There are only 10 events (10 covers) per season and two in between, 12 chances in a calendar month to get the specific 4* cover you want. Except there are now 8 4*'s that rotate through, each with 3 covers: every two months you'll see one of the cover you want as a 1K reward, except it will be longer because before that rotation goes through they'll add another 4*.

Which finally, at long last, gets us to the -third- true cost, the ISO to level these guys. Many have seen the screenshots of fully covered/leveled Kingpin - I ran up against several fully leveled Khan's last PVP, so folks paid for those covers and (likely) paid for that ISO. But to those who don't...good luck getting that million ISO. I forget what the Iso per week poll said: 30K average perhaps? That's going to take awhile to get the million: by which time there will be another two dozen characters.

GrimSkald

Agent Alex wrote:

Colognoisseur wrote:

I ask the same question I did back then. Is this good for the overall health of the game?

I agree with everything you say but my biggest concern is about real content
and releasign a new character every week is not new content
Are you tired of playing the same 5-6 events 100 times? It's really boring, and giving me 80 characters to play the same events (even consider some really suck like Heroics), is probably going to kill the game eventually

Actually, the new characters are new content, and one might argue necessary new content - without further characters for people to level and play with the game will stagnate. The trouble is, it's not great new content - it prevents people from getting to complacent with their current characters, sure, but it does little to relieve the monotony of play.

It isn't the fact that they continuously release new characters - that is necessary. It's the tinykitty pace. The problem is whenever they need to do this bombardment they don't then slow down, they just go back to their normal schedule.

And they do need to do something about the roster slot prices - it simply isn't sustainable. Sure, they can give us other sources of Hero Points (in fact they have,) but unless they keep giving us new sources of hero points or raising the values on the sources we have, it isn't going to work. And if they do that, then the other things that Hero Points buy will become "cheaper."

babinro

I ask the same question I did back then. Is this good for the overall health of the game?

Yes.

If you ask someone would they enjoy having more levels to play through in their Mario game I'm sure they'd say yes. I'd love more StarCraft 2 story missions to play with or more Diablo 3 classes to try out. I play Hearthstone and I'm always eager for more and more cards to be released even though my collection is no where close to being complete.

Characters are a fun part of this game.
They are what offer variety to the actual gameplay.

It's been abundantly clear for a LONG time that you're NOT supposed to be able to realistically keep up with all character releases. This is true now and it was true in the past as well. I understand that a minute fraction (less than 0.01%) of the player base actually DID keep up with releases but that doesn't translate to a system that's intended to be accessible to the player base.

All that having been said....

If there IS a problem it's not with having more characters it's with being unable to focus your effort on those characters.

I don't think people should be upset that there's too many options to have fun playing around with. We should be upset that there's a limited number of monthly events and an ever increasing cast of covers to award out 1 character per event. On top of that there's an ever growing list of vaulted characters who are completely denied to us on a monthly basis.

It's okay in a free to play environment if players can't keep up with every character release or even have a roster for all of them.
The primary source of revenue comes from people wanting to be collectors of everything.

It's not HEALTHY to have people waiting a year minimum to have enough events to fully cover a new character. (this statement refers to the greater community as the top tier can cover substantially faster with high placement)

In summary:
- New characters are fun...bring em on!
- Is it really HEALTHY to have 2* transitioners waiting well over a year to fully cover a 3* by gradual accumulation of 1-2 covers per PvP (whose time gaps continuously grow as new characters are added) and the occasional DDQ? Please address this. Simply delaying character releases is a band aid solution.

Raffoon

babinro wrote:

I ask the same question I did back then. Is this good for the overall health of the game?

Yes.

If you ask someone would they enjoy having more levels to play through in their Mario game I'm sure they'd say yes. I'd love more StarCraft 2 story missions to play with or more Diablo 3 classes to try out. I play Hearthstone and I'm always eager for more and more cards to be released even though my collection is no where close to being complete.

Characters are a fun part of this game.
They are what offer variety to the actual gameplay.

It's been abundantly clear for a LONG time that you're NOT supposed to be able to realistically keep up with all character releases. This is true now and it was true in the past as well. I understand that a minute fraction (less than 0.01%) of the player base actually DID keep up with releases but that doesn't translate to a system that's intended to be accessible to the player base.

All that having been said....

If there IS a problem it's not with having more characters it's with being unable to focus your effort on those characters.

I don't think people should be upset that there's too many options to have fun playing around with. We should be upset that there's a limited number of monthly events and an ever increasing cast of covers to award out 1 character per event. On top of that there's an ever growing list of vaulted characters who are completely denied to us on a monthly basis.

It's okay in a free to play environment if players can't keep up with every character release or even have a roster for all of them.
The primary source of revenue comes from people wanting to be collectors of everything.

It's not HEALTHY to have people waiting a year minimum to have enough events to fully cover a new character. (this statement refers to the greater community as the top tier can cover substantially faster with high placement)

In summary:
- New characters are fun...bring em on!
- Is it really HEALTHY to have 2* transitioners waiting well over a year to fully cover a 3* by gradual accumulation of 1-2 covers per PvP (whose time gaps continuously grow as new characters are added) and the occasional DDQ? Please address this. Simply delaying character releases is a band aid solution.

Right on. Variety is fun. It's how we collect covers that's borked.

LegendReborn

While I've accepted that d3 is going to throw more and more new characters with terrible week long pves, I feel terrible for anyone trying to break into the game. I have no idea how people with two star rosters are supposed to accumulate covers to actually creat a three star that actually beats out their two stars. There are more characters than ever and it's not like every three star is a strong three star, especially for the transitioning player. D3 has said near nothing about this growing issue and at this point it seems like they don't care.

Sorry newer players, whale up, get out, or be happy in two star land throwing out almost every three star you pick up because you have zero roster space while you pray for covers for those three stars you are pining for.