A simple question to D3 regarding 2* essentials

Unknown

Dauthi wrote:

Why are you suddenly having 2*s required in essential PVE events? What do you intend to promote or gain by doing this? I like to defend you as a developer because I love this game, but for the life of me I can't find a reason you would do this. Give me a reason I should keep 2* Captain America when I already have 3*, other than your new handicap you have created for those who don't have him in PVE.

I have come at it from every angle. It doesn't benefit lower rosters, higher rosters simply have to obtain this easy cover and delete/keep it to face the node. It doesn't promote roster diversity either as 2*s are useless in higher ranks. The only thing I can think of that it promotes is additional roster slots.

I feel many of us veterans would like to know why after deleting our 2* Captain due to him being useless, only to find that we are being penalized for our logical decision (and for a new 3* too that veterans need). If you can give me a response on the basis of your logic we would appreciate it, and I think silence can be generally regarded as the reason being $$$. If anyone else can think of a reason, please bring it up. I want to believe this change had some kind of benefit towards gameplay in general in any way.

I don't understand why people need to whine about every little thing. The thing about the essential nodes is it gives an advantage to those who have the character over those who don't - plain and simple. I don't have any 4* so I'm locked out of their essentials. I don't have all 3* so that happens fairly often with them too. That's the game design. I accept it. If the devs wanted to create level field for everybody there wouldn't be any essentials in the first place.
And I'm sure you often benefited from having this sweet advantage over the others.

Now when you occasionally get the wrong end of the stick it all of a sudden becomes unfair.

grunth13

The other problem with 2* Cap is that he simply just not that strong. I have a max 2* Cap and his red shield hits for 1063 at level 150 vs 2778 for level 104 SRCA. Granted the goons are never over leveled in essentials (they are still 109/110/110 with my characters being soft capped at 104) but its still annoying to fight the goons with nickels and dimes hit damage when they are hitting with massive damage once a threaten tile gets on the board.

CrookedKnight

And this is Thick as Thieves, so you're eventually going to run into an essential with Ares being fed yellow by a Muscle, and that's no fun even with a party of three good characters.

TaoSpoons

simonsez wrote:

DFiPL wrote:

maybe it gives transitioners who still have most of their strength in 2* land the ability to chase progression rewards every once in a while instead of being locked out

Do you ever look at the top page of the leaderboard in PvE? It's usually filled with people with 2^ rosters, who are there because they get a massive scaling benefit. So let's not pretend that 2* people need extra help to compete in PvE.

I'd dispute your assertion that 2 star rosters dominate in PvE. I frequently look over leaderboard rosters to check out the competition. The leaderboards I see are predominantly filled by those with max 3 or 4 star rosters. I occasionally see rosters of equivalent or lower level, but they're exceptions and not the rule.

As a spot check, I went through the Top 10 leaderboard in my current TaT slice. Only one player had no characters with a max level below 100 and that player was 8th. If the weaker scaling accorded to 2 star rosters gives their undeveloped heroes such an overwhelming advantage that they dominate PvE, I'm seeing little evidence to support it.

Frankly, I'm not certain why I'd expect 2 star rosters to be overwhelmingly more effective, anyway. 3 star heroes not only do more damage and have more health than their counterparts at equivalent levels, 3 star hero powers are designed to have superior functionality. Even ignoring lazy hero power variants which are clearly better, I'd be hard pressed to find a 3 star power I didn't see as an improvement over an equivalent or comparable 2 star power.

Unknown

TaoSpoons wrote:

simonsez wrote:

DFiPL wrote:

maybe it gives transitioners who still have most of their strength in 2* land the ability to chase progression rewards every once in a while instead of being locked out

Do you ever look at the top page of the leaderboard in PvE? It's usually filled with people with 2^ rosters, who are there because they get a massive scaling benefit. So let's not pretend that 2* people need extra help to compete in PvE.

I'd dispute your assertion that 2 star rosters dominate in PvE. I frequently look over leaderboard rosters to check out the competition. The leaderboards I see are predominantly filled by those with max 3 or 4 star rosters. I occasionally see rosters of equivalent or lower level, but they're exceptions and not the rule.

As a spot check, I went through the Top 10 leaderboard in my current TaT slice. Only one player had no characters with a max level below 100 and that player was 8th. If the weaker scaling accorded to 2 star rosters gives their undeveloped heroes such an overwhelming advantage that they dominate PvE, I'm seeing little evidence to support it.

Frankly, I'm not certain why I'd expect 2 star rosters to be overwhelmingly more effective, anyway. 3 star heroes not only do more damage and have more health than their counterparts at equivalent levels, 3 star hero powers are designed to have superior functionality. Even ignoring lazy hero power variants which are clearly better, I'd be hard pressed to find a 3 star power I didn't see as an improvement over an equivalent or comparable 2 star power.

Excepting OBW and Wind Storm, of course!

Unknown

I'm liking the Demiurge progression with essentials:
A. Single 3*/4* character essential
B. => Single 3* character/3* and a 4* character essential
C. => multiple 3* characters/3* and a 4* character essential
D. => multiple 3* characters/2* and a 3* and a 4* character essential.

If you don't have the essential, there's little point in trying to compete beyond progression. What demiurge has done is brilliant; they're keeping more of the player base engaged! I don't know exact numbers, but I presume the % of people with access to at least one essential has gone to something like (made up numbers to illustrate a point):
A. 70%/18%
B. 70%/50%
C. 80%/50%
D. 80%/88%

It's a huge jump in possible player engagement.

simonsez

TaoSpoons wrote:

I'd dispute your assertion that 2 star rosters dominate in PvE.

You can't dispute something I didn't say. That's Phantron's job.

DFiPL

Nivrax wrote:

This doesn't help transitioners because they simply will never have enough HP to have for enough slots for both ever growing group of 3* AND all the 2*s.

Which...is exactly what you're saying is true of veterans, no? That they discard 2* once they have the 3* because of roster crunches?

It sounds like the argument you're pivoting to now is that it doesn't REALLY help transitioners now because eventually they'll be in the veterans' shoes and having to make roster decisions regarding keeping their old 94s versus adding new covers. From the perspective of a transitioner, that's a nice problem to have. "I have too many 3*, whatever shall I do?"

Look, I get the effect it has on veterans who have already tossed their 2* Cap out the window, I do. I just don't see this as targeted at veterans, because the ultimate resolution is exactly the same as what was going to happen anyway: buy a roster spot for Vision, or discard somebody to make room for Vision. It's just that Cap (2) is keeping Vision's seat warm for a day or two.

TaoSpoons

simonsez wrote:

TaoSpoons wrote:

I'd dispute your assertion that 2 star rosters dominate in PvE.

You can't dispute something I didn't say. That's Phantron's job.

Then you're either not thinking about what you said or you said it poorly.

elvy75

I am going to say that i dont entirely agree with my fellow alliance mate. 2* rosters don't dominate PVE, its those fully covered underleveled 3* that do. Rarely i see someone with 4* rosters in top 10, or if i do see them their 4* are fully covered and not higher than level 200. This is the issue with PVE - it promotes people to leave their 3* at level 100 and 4* to max level 200, as that way their scaling is not over the roof, and having all covers helps a lot. It also generates problems with PVP as those people are not competitive as they are not having leveled characters, so they call for 166/270 wall and nerfs.

With all this said, having 2* essential is not benefiting anyone. Vets have no HP shortage and will buy roster slot for cap that will be sold for vision, but what is the point of having him in the roster as he is really bad one. Transitioners are the ones in danger the most, as most of them sold their 2* version of 3* character and do have HP shortage so will have hard time to be competitive. 2* rosters might have cap but not the rest, so they are not in the great position either.

simonsez

TaoSpoons wrote:

Then you're either not thinking about what you said or you said it poorly.

Or you're just really bad at inferring.

Try this: 2* rosters are by no means under-represented in the top of PvE leaderboards to the extent where any of the devs would say, "We really need to make a 2* an essential to help these guys out"

Unknown

The percentage of players that had 2* Captain America rostered was probably lower than expected, so they decided to make him required instead of allowing the 3* Steve Rogers to force you into tokens and/or a roster slot. It doesn't seem like it's that much more complicated to me...

PeterGibbons316

shurak wrote:

I don't understand why people need to whine about every little thing.

Now when you occasionally get the wrong end of the stick it all of a sudden becomes unfair.

It's not unfair, it's a blatant money grab. There is absolutely zero reason to keep a 2* Cap if you have the 3* version. We saw during the Ultron event that they have the ability to allow you to use different versions of the same character in an essential node, and not allowing that in this case is just D3 forcing people to pay for that extra roster slot to hold on to a USELESS character. It's not unfair, it's just a **** thing to do.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

TaoSpoons wrote:

Then you're either not thinking about what you said or you said it poorly.

Or you're just really bad at inferring.

Try this: 2* rosters are by no means under-represented in the top of PvE leaderboards to the extent where any of the devs would say, "We really need to make a 2* an essential to help these guys out"

This is false reasoning. There may be many new players who have a tiny cap because they like Captain America, much like many people use 2* Wolverine because they like Wolverine. 2* Wolverine has done the most damage in the game, and it's not like Patch isn't a desired character.

By making a 2*, a 3*, and a 4* essential, they are helping drive total player engagement because it's more likely that you'll have at least one of those, no matter what state of the game you're in.

Unknown

It is nice to actually have a required character with covers on it for a change.

Dauthi

DFiPL wrote:

Nivrax wrote:

This doesn't help transitioners because they simply will never have enough HP to have for enough slots for both ever growing group of 3* AND all the 2*s.

Which...is exactly what you're saying is true of veterans, no? That they discard 2* once they have the 3* because of roster crunches?

It sounds like the argument you're pivoting to now is that it doesn't REALLY help transitioners now because eventually they'll be in the veterans' shoes and having to make roster decisions regarding keeping their old 94s versus adding new covers. From the perspective of a transitioner, that's a nice problem to have. "I have too many 3*, whatever shall I do?"
.

It's more along the lines of "I have too many useless 3*s because they have 2-3 covers". The worst part is they aren't capable of earning the same amount of HP a veteran roster can, making their decision that much harder.

What I don't get is D3 just admitted that roster slot costs were a problem and would be a big one in the future, it's why they started giving out more HP for the daily rewards. Now with this and HP cuts for PVE events they have taken steps backwards by exacerbating the problem.

daibar wrote:

simonsez wrote:

TaoSpoons wrote:

Then you're either not thinking about what you said or you said it poorly.

Or you're just really bad at inferring.

Try this: 2* rosters are by no means under-represented in the top of PvE leaderboards to the extent where any of the devs would say, "We really need to make a 2* an essential to help these guys out"

This is false reasoning. There may be many new players who have a tiny cap because they like Captain America, much like many people use 2* Wolverine because they like Wolverine. 2* Wolverine has done the most damage in the game, and it's not like Patch isn't a desired character.

By making a 2*, a 3*, and a 4* essential, they are helping drive total player engagement because it's more likely that you'll have at least one of those, no matter what state of the game you're in.

Alright, then explain to me why they don't allow both versions of Captain America like they did in Ultron? It would still have the "engagement" you are excited about yet it wouldn't force us to pay for more roster slots. Like others have said, a win win.

shurak wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Why are you suddenly having 2*s required in essential PVE events? What do you intend to promote or gain by doing this? I like to defend you as a developer because I love this game, but for the life of me I can't find a reason you would do this. Give me a reason I should keep 2* Captain America when I already have 3*, other than your new handicap you have created for those who don't have him in PVE.

I have come at it from every angle. It doesn't benefit lower rosters, higher rosters simply have to obtain this easy cover and delete/keep it to face the node. It doesn't promote roster diversity either as 2*s are useless in higher ranks. The only thing I can think of that it promotes is additional roster slots.

I feel many of us veterans would like to know why after deleting our 2* Captain due to him being useless, only to find that we are being penalized for our logical decision (and for a new 3* too that veterans need). If you can give me a response on the basis of your logic we would appreciate it, and I think silence can be generally regarded as the reason being $$$. If anyone else can think of a reason, please bring it up. I want to believe this change had some kind of benefit towards gameplay in general in any way.

I don't understand why people need to whine about every little thing. The thing about the essential nodes is it gives an advantage to those who have the character over those who don't - plain and simple. I don't have any 4* so I'm locked out of their essentials. I don't have all 3* so that happens fairly often with them too. That's the game design. I accept it. If the devs wanted to create level field for everybody there wouldn't be any essentials in the first place.
And I'm sure you often benefited from having this sweet advantage over the others.

Now when you occasionally get the wrong end of the stick it all of a sudden becomes unfair.

Think about how you are writing if you want others to take you seriously. Labeling valid complaints of others as "whining" is demeaning and immature.

In any case, you glossed over many points. 3-4* rosters need these new characters, as it is the only way to progress since they have all/most of the 3*s. In fact (usually) veterans have to wait a month before a new character releases before we can gain any progress by obtaining new covers. 2*s gain progress with any cover however so they gain progress consistently.

Second, if you think 2* rosters don't already have a big advantage by not getting wrecked by over-scaled ability damage, then you are kidding yourself. As far as I know, the % of HP taken by being hit by an over-scaled ability is improportionately high compared to the % taken at normal levels.

Go to the current Alliance PVE rankings and check out the #1 spot Hatsune Miku. There are some great examples there, but check out Seekie especially (scroll ALL the way through the roster). This roster is a great example of someone manipulating this issue to their advantage. The only reason everyone doesn't do this is because it makes you're roster useless in PVP. Note that this is a commander from a #1 alliance.

Lastly, if I were to pickup all the 2*s I have gotten rid of now, it would cost me somewhere along the lines of 6K+ HP. How much money/time do you think that much HP is? Low rosters need to realize more slots costs more HP. I am currently paying 700 HP for a single slot. Now with new characters spawning like crazy, combined with needing 2*s again, the HP needed is getting overwhelming.

Unknown

Dauthi wrote:

daibar wrote:

simonsez wrote:

Try this: 2* rosters are by no means under-represented in the top of PvE leaderboards to the extent where any of the devs would say, "We really need to make a 2* an essential to help these guys out"

This is false reasoning. There may be many new players who have a tiny cap because they like Captain America, much like many people use 2* Wolverine because they like Wolverine. 2* Wolverine has done the most damage in the game, and it's not like Patch isn't a desired character.

By making a 2*, a 3*, and a 4* essential, they are helping drive total player engagement because it's more likely that you'll have at least one of those, no matter what state of the game you're in.

Alright, then explain to me why they don't allow both versions of Captain America like they did in Ultron? It would still have the "engagement" you are excited about yet it wouldn't force us to pay for more roster slots. Like others have said, a win win.

I don't disagree there, and think it's also a push to get vets to fork out for more roster slots, most of who can afford it even if they complain about it. Agree that it makes the game more p2w. I'd much rather use Steve over tinyCap myself.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

Master025 wrote:

Scaling benefit really? Are you sure? My roster is full of level 90 characters and sometimes i'm getting level 250+ enemies

You didn't say, but I KNOW you're talking about goons. They could be level 1000, and it wouldn't matter. It'd just make the node more tedious. Get back to me when you see a lv300+ Fist/Blade/Daken

Non-goons max level 190-200, still really high for a level 90 roster, 1 shotting my characters with 1 ability. What's your max level? Of course i'm not going to see lvl300+ with my current roster, that would be insane.

Unknown

DFiPL wrote:

I just don't see this as targeted at veterans, because the ultimate resolution is exactly the same as what was going to happen anyway: buy a roster spot for Vision, or discard somebody to make room for Vision. It's just that Cap (2) is keeping Vision's seat warm for a day or two.

Me neither. My point is that it it doesn't help anybody and makes it very hard for newer players instead. Back then I was few times at point where I had to put cash only to not lose stuff I won. And to this day they added at least 10 extra 3* and you would now need extra 6-7 slots for useless 2*s too.

And I disagree with having to choose which 3* to go for as a 'good' problem. If you could choose select heroes to fight for I'd agree it's good. But not when you're forced to throw them after you just won them with hard work or had 'lucky' pull.

Unknown

Not that they care to, but the way they should be doing it is not requiring a star rating or specific character but someone from a team in the Marvel universe.

Guardian of the galaxy required
Avenger required
X-Men character required

that way pretty much everyone is included and we don't need to keep throwing away ISO on standard tokens hoping to get a single cover for x character, because a 2* requirement is basically all that promotes.