4.3 Characters/30Days/A Cool Million Iso

Eddiemon

Colognoisseur wrote:

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.

Well who are 'we'? I didn't get a professor X or a Rag blue or a Kingpin. I did get two Kamalas that required less than a thousand ISO to max.

The We who got most/all of those things were the top 5% of the playerbase. And even then they got a max of 8 covers barring progression rewards which haven't been too prevalent for the 4*s yet. And if you have actually maxed both the 4 stars then why are you bothering to max Rags or Kamala? ANd then how many of the top 5% who got a Kingpin also got a professor X, yet alone more than one.

There isn't a requirement or expectation in the game that you acquire and max everything. I throw Rag a couple of levels when he's featured but he'll never be maxed. My rister has 4 maxed 166s - Spidey, Patch, Laken and Black Panther. Punisher, Hood and Falcon are getting up there. I have a 220ish XForce who will probably not get the last 50 levels.

I have a fully covered Human Torch who I think is around level 57. He makes it into play when he's boosted but when not he's junk. Doc Ock never even makes it into play when boosted unless he is compulsory.

I understand you are the ultimate colector, but as far as gameplay is concerned these releases change practically nothing. None of the new releases look to be gamebreakingly powerful and 'must have'. X-Force hasn't been displaced in any team I've faced.

The must have/ must win/ must place is being driven by your alliances and your egos. Not the game, which doesn't change drastically when you don't have a Professor X. Sure he was featured for something else, but you can getenerally et the something else via PvP if you didn't have the featured PvE character.

puppychow

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.

*replaces "sickness" with "big wallet"*

So far I'm managing to keep up w/ the pace, and got myself 2 Kingpin covers within this past hour. I'm glad Quicksilver is a "mere" 3* character, and therefore top 150 individual cover. After reading over the descriptions of his 3 abilities, I find QS to be a hybrid Bagman/Psyduck. he is utterly not useful aside from unlocking essential nodes.

puppychow

SnowcaTT wrote:

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.

I just paid 1,000 hp to buy a slot for Kingpin. He is my 78th character on my roster. Even though I'm in a top 100 pve/pvp alliance, and I usually place top 10 individual in both, the hp rewards are nowhere near enough to cover the cost of a new slot.

ClydeFrog76

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.

All we're getting is different types of Mario to run through the same levels over and over and over. Gameplay variety - and thus longevity - also fundamentally comes from different levels. We need new PVE more often. It's been what, 5 months since Enemy of the State? That's pitiful.

If there's not some big-**** NEW event to coincide with Age of Ultron then the devs seriously need their heads checked.

I am living in hope.

Azoic

Yah they need to talk about plans to bump up hp and iso gains. I like the game and have spent money on it, but roster slots (esp at this rate) is absurd at some point. Honestly, cap it at something paltry like 150-200 just as som sort of hp sink. That is 400/month. As more chars are released, folks actually playing and collecting will be paying 2000/month? Lol. That is when I quit. I will spend money on covers and would love packs to be worthwhile, but that much just to hold a char?

In most games dlc and a char or two would be $15-20. But that much to use 1/13 a char? If you are charging that much for the slot, it should come fully covered.

NighteyesGrisu

arktos1971 wrote:

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).

that might be true if you somehow feel the need to 'win' every PVE. But for most others having a one cover version is perfectly enough to finish in the top 150 and get a cover of the next one. And even if you don't there's always a PVP right after that where you can get said cover. Bemoaning the needed iso to max them all is kinda ridiculous, IMO. For most, maxing every single character isn't really a requirement.

The biggest issue IMO is not the difficulty of getting one cover or maxing a character but (as others have mentioned) the cost for roster slots once you pass a certain stage.

Unknown

Considering no one is going to be dropping iso into Quicksilver any time soon...

spccrain

With an upcoming Nerf of someone dear to my heart his qs green is looking better and better

atomzed

ClydeFrog76 wrote:

If there's not some big-**** NEW event to coincide with Age of Ultron then the devs seriously need their heads checked.

I am living in hope.

Looks like there is hope for you after all.

in the other spoiler thread it was revealed that something is planned

Unknown

NighteyesGrisu wrote:

arktos1971 wrote:

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).

that might be true if you somehow feel the need to 'win' every PVE. But for most others having a one cover version is perfectly enough to finish in the top 150 and get a cover of the next one. And even if you don't there's always a PVP right after that where you can get said cover. Bemoaning the needed iso to max them all is kinda ridiculous, IMO. For most, maxing every single character isn't really a requirement.

The biggest issue IMO is not the difficulty of getting one cover or maxing a character but (as others have mentioned) the cost for roster slots once you pass a certain stage.

I have just two words : scaling and MMR.

You can also stop playing at all.

If you just need one cover to play the next Pve, to get one cover, to play the next pve...

There will always be enough players to max characters you are going to face in a PvP.

So, if the fun of playing MPQ is matching 3 tiles whatever the character (we could also keep on playing with 2* characters), then the answer is : no, I am not interested. I've been in the game for 430 days, and I do enjoy new characters when they are worth something.

In the latest releases, the fun/useful characters are quite numerous :

Prof X, Kingpin, IF, KK, Cage. And I'm glad to play with them.

Vhailorx

I have to say that I don't really understand the argument of people who are saying that players are NOT supposed to collect all available characters.

The point here is that the roster slot costs increase infinitely, so doubling my roster size costs more than doubles the price of the roster slots. And the game's systems actively encourage me to get and keep as many 3* as possible. they are necessary for essential nodes, and generally key for getting high scores in both pvp and pve. And covers also expire, so I can't sit on all of my placement/prog rewards until I need a particular character. Additionally, the devs have repeatedly said that a deep roster is a key to success. They have also implemented many systems that support that position, such as the constantly rotating boosted characters, the limited number of healthpacks, and the general rock/paper/scissors nature of the gameplay.

So while it may be true that players don't need to collect each character, I don't think that is really the point. The game is designed to incentivize players to keep as many characters as possible, and punishes those players who don't. Given that fact, it seems ridiculous to release new characters at a frenzied pace, and retain the infinitely increasing roster slots prices.

Oops: Edited to change "are" in the first sentence to "are NOT." So basically completely changing the meaning of that first sentence. sorry.

NighteyesGrisu

arktos1971 wrote:

I have just two words : scaling and MMR.

You can also stop playing at all.

If you just need one cover to play the next Pve, to get one cover, to play the next pve...

There will always be enough players to max characters you are going to face in a PvP.

So, if the fun of playing MPQ is matching 3 tiles whatever the character (we could also keep on playing with 2* characters), then the answer is : no, I am not interested. I've been in the game for 430 days, and I do enjoy new characters when they are worth something.

In the latest releases, the fun/useful characters are quite numerous :

Prof X, Kingpin, IF, KK, Cage. And I'm glad to play with them.

scaling isn't so much of a porblem in the essential nodes, these can usually be beaten with underlevelled essential chars even if you get scaled out of the 'normal' nodes..at least that's the case for me. and in PVP too it's quite possible to score high without having the featured char maxed (though admittedly with the higher boosts that has become harder, which is why I didn't understand the rejection by most of the multi-boost pvp)

I just don't get the 'have everything maxed or you might as well stop playing attitude', sorry. I too do enjoy good, new characters to play with, which is exactly why I don't have a proplem with the release rate per se. It comes down to a matter of priorization, as it is with most things in life.

SnowcaTT

Vhailorx wrote:

I have to say that I don't really understand the argument of people who are saying that players are supposed to collect all available characters.

Lots of people who play here say they are Marvel fans. So I assume part of it is "let's get all the characters, we love the universe!"
Other people who play here are game fans. Then you have the "gotta catch 'em all!" mentality.

Why I liked getting them all is it is very apparent I'll never have all the characters at max level, or all the characters max covered. But at least I can have them all on my roster! Feels like some sort of accomplishment!

Well, I used to be able to have them all on my roster, until roster spots got out of control. What I don't understand is why not everyone is on the "reduce roster slots NOW" bandwagon. You pretty much have to have every single 3*: they are either essential in PVE at some point (so you need them to do well there), or they are featured in PVP at some point (so you need them to do well there). You pretty much want to keep every single 4* just on the off-hand chance you ever somehow get enough covers to make them worthwhile. But with the release rate of these two only, by the end of the year if you get rid of every 1* and 2* your roster spots are STILL going to cost 800+ HP each (what they already cost if you are keeping 1*/2*), and that price will only continue to go up.

atomzed

SnowcaTT wrote:

Well, I used to be able to have them all on my roster, until roster spots got out of control. What I don't understand is why not everyone is on the "reduce roster slots NOW" bandwagon. You pretty much have to have every single 3*: they are either essential in PVE at some point (so you need them to do well there), or they are featured in PVP at some point (so you need them to do well there). You pretty much want to keep every single 4* just on the off-hand chance you ever somehow get enough covers to make them worthwhile. But with the release rate of these two only, by the end of the year if you get rid of every 1* and 2* your roster spots are STILL going to cost 800+ HP each (what they already cost if you are keeping 1*/2*), and that price will only continue to go up.

Just sharing my experience here, and not to criticise your playing preference.

I have a strong roster, with max Xforce and 13(?) Max 3*. I just managed to cover max my GT and fury 2 weeks ago, and GT is now at 250.

Guess the number of roster spots I have? 56. And I hoping to keep it at 56 for a long time to come. And this is after I recruited kamala and king pin. I also have 4 1* solely for DDQ.

How do I keep the roster spot low? Mainly by dropping characters I don't need, or characters I not interested in keeping. So far, these has been the 2* characters. I dropped my cover max Ares for kingpin, as I realIsed I am not using him at all (not level max).

I figured that moving forward, I may have to drop some of the 3*. Characters that I didn't level max but cover max like psylocke, or HT or beast or doc oct. I was seriously considering to sell Rag but decided to keep him just in case the charge tiles come in useful.

I still think that roster price should be cap... But in the mean time, I think it is entirely possible to play with a sub 60 roster size.

SnowcaTT

atomzed wrote:

Guess the number of roster spots I have? 56. And I hoping to keep it at 56 for a long time to come. And this is after I recruited kamala and king pin. I also have 4 1* solely for DDQ.

How do I keep the roster spot low? Mainly by dropping characters I don't need, or characters I not interested in keeping. So far, these has been the 2* characters. I dropped my cover max Ares for kingpin, as I realIsed I am not using him at all (not level max).

I figured that moving forward, I may have to drop some of the 3*. Characters that I didn't level max but cover max like psylocke, or HT or beast or doc oct. I was seriously considering to sell Rag but decided to keep him just in case the charge tiles come in useful.

I still think that roster price should be cap... But in the mean time, I think it is entirely possible to play with a sub 60 roster size.

Yep, I agree this is the way to go. I'm headed in this direction, and it sounds like many more are as well. Keep one 1*, eventually 3 2*'s. It's just a bummer that that is the way that we are practically forced into by D3 due to roster costs to keep the little characters.

Are you really going to drop 3*'s though? It just seems to me inevitable that the time a 4* you really need is in progression, the PVP will be one of the characters you dropped, and that loaner is pretty unlikely to get you to the 4* progression.

Unknown

Players will have to choose who to actually level, instead of leveling EVERYONE.

It's not a big deal. It's ok that we may all get to fight a variet of level'd teams instead of 99% 166 166 166 166 166 166 166

It's not the end of the world. Play on.

Devs, you might want to do something though. There is no point buying covers if we can't level them. $100 for 70k ISO LOL...not happening either.

atomzed

SnowcaTT wrote:

Yep, I agree this is the way to go. I'm headed in this direction, and it sounds like many more are as well. Keep one 1*, eventually 3 2*'s. It's just a bummer that that is the way that we are practically forced into by D3 due to roster costs to keep the little characters.

Actually, you will need at least 3 1*, since you need them for the first node of DDQ. There have been times which my 1* (storm) is locked out, so I made it a point to have 4 1* which allows me to play all the nodes.

Are you really going to drop 3*'s though? It just seems to me inevitable that the time a 4* you really need is in progression, the PVP will be one of the characters you dropped, and that loaner is pretty unlikely to get you to the 4* progression.

You are right that dropping 3* May not be most optimal. There is a strong case of dropping 4* instead, since they don't typically boost 4* frequently, and 4* are required as essential for only one PVE/PVP after the release. Also considering how expensive to level them, it may make more sense to drop 4* instead.

I think at the end of it, it depends on personal preference. Like I will definitely keep a 4* Hulkbuster or a 4* superior Spiderman, even though I may only have one cover for them. I am also perfectly ok with axing a character which I have multiple covers for. Example would be my cover max IW. If after the rework she still sucks, I will also consider just removing her for a 4* Hulkbuster or 4* superior spiderman.

Phaserhawk

I'm thinking the whole 13 cover thing needs to go What about needing 7 covers or 10!!, 10 is a nice number, all you need to do is change all the base stats to the stats as if you had 1 cover already on there, that way a 5/5/3 only needs to be 4/4/2

In other words 2/2/2 would be the new 3/3/3 of a character, this would cut down on the number of covers needs to obtain max characters and sure make things easier on all of us.

hurcules

A fully levelled Jugg can take on that node alone. Just sayin'.

FaustianDeal

Switchman wrote:

Players will have to choose who to actually level, instead of leveling EVERYONE.
[...]
Devs, you might want to do something though. There is no point buying covers if we can't level them. $100 for 70k ISO LOL...not happening either.

I'm okay with picking and choosing who to level. That's easier said that done though.
Ask your average 2* (or 2-3* transition) player who they would most like to put ISO into. The answer doesn't matter, they will have favorites - either because of personal bias or because of the demands of the meta; mark their answers. Then ask how many covers they have for that character, odds are the answer is <10 (possibly << 10).

When 3* Captain America launched there weren't that many characters in the game. If you didn't crush the first 3 events where he was offered you were going to see him again in a few weeks because options were low. (Other than Ares, Cap was my fastest character to 13 covers where 0 covers were purchased.) If Kamala Khan is their answer they could be waiting a very long time to have enough covers for ISO demands to even matter.

Your ability to 'pick' a character to level is largely out of your hands. What if Patch is your favorite character? That guy is currently enjoying his 2nd stay in the Disney vault.. if you didn't get 13 before this season started you are back in a holding pattern.

After he came out of the vault last time it went something like this: you will see 1 PVE and 1 PVP event in that next season where he is available as a prize in that season.
If you haven't been keeping up on characters, you might not be locked out of the essential nodes in the PVE where he is a prize. If you have been waiting to spend ISO so you can give it to Patch you probably won't be competitive in his PVP event either.
Now you are stuck praying to RNGjesus hoping tokens will deliver you to the promised land.
And you just missed you chance to get struck by lightning and draw him from from tokens because he's back in the vault.

Every character they add doesn't just make the total cost of roster go up (in terms of HP for slots and ISO for levels), it also reduces the chance of a given player ever getting to finish and use their favorite character.

The pinch collectors feel is hard. I am on that camp. But the pinch transition players feel is almost worse.