A big "Thank you" to D3 for introducing 2 Star Essentials.
Arondite
Posts: 1,188 Chairperson of the Boards
Now I can quit PvE entirely.
0
Comments
-
I guess I am one of the few who like it. I have been playing for 430 days or so, have a full roster of most characters(no star lord, bag man, or yelena) and have only spent $20 for roster slots early on. I have a spare black widow I use for TU only-5 blue covers for the stun. I think it is a nod to the newer players to help them in pve. It also lets me have an essential I won't care about healing for the next node. Saves me a health pack.
That said I know I am far from a casual player. I play a couple times a day at least. Hour or two most likely to hit every event, so I may earn a few extra HP.0 -
I think it's a terrible change.
Roster slots are very expensive, and the price rises infinitely as far as any of us can tell. The character release pace has quickened substantially in the past months. Many vets have responded by selling off all but the essential 2*s (obw, ares) to make space while still being able to pass the daily quest.
This change seems like a direct response to this tactic, forcing vets to re-roster otherwise useless 2* in order to compete in pve, and indirectly forcing players to spend more on roster slots.0 -
JD Geek wrote:I think it is a nod to the newer players to help them in pve.
The best advice for new players is to develop 4-6 2* characters while they begin grabbing 3*. New players don't keep all 14 2*s. The only people this change really benefits are either 1) extreme collectors; or 2) people with the resources to have a designated roster spot for the 2* essential, and the patience to keep a bunch of 2*s in their sell queue in case they're up next.0 -
I guess they got upset that we were ditching their badly designed characters. So, they thought, hey, how can we MAKE them keep characters they know they don't need to play the game.
We got it! Let's randomly require 2* and 4* characters in PvE! That way we can sell even more roster spots.
I'm sure their data mining will show that having more characters you don't use and roster spots that are just dead weight is fun!0 -
I figure I'll just suck up and buy the slots for the useless 2* and when they finally decided this was a dumb idea I'll suddenly find myself with 5 extra slots for the 3*s so it's a win-win, other than that I'm missing about 4000 HP, of course.0
-
Making 2* Essential, basically only made me get one extra slot. I just keep one cover of each 2* that I don't want to use and sell it when it's no longer essential.
I don't even lose out on ISO this way, but I do have to work really hard on that one node since I only really have 2 decent characters to fight that node.0 -
Other than the initial upset of finding out i needed a 2* Cap (which i didn't have) for the essential in TaT, i'm pretty ok with the 2* essentials. A little warning or notice a few weeks before it went live would have been nice as that would have given us time to build up our roster and 2*s, but then that itself would have generated another round of negative feedback so it's a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" kinda thing.
I think having a buffed 2* as an essential is not such a bad thing for those whose main characters are level 140 and below. Those higher levelled with worse scaling would have issues though since they're handicapped by a 2*. But then again they would too if that event featured a new character so i'm not sure how bad this 2* essential would really be going forward0 -
i would love to see them come out right before the season starts and give the entire list for the month of the PVE and PVP. you know they are already planned ahead of time so why hide it0
-
Oldboy wrote:Other than the initial upset of finding out i needed a 2* Cap (which i didn't have) for the essential in TaT, i'm pretty ok with the 2* essentials. A little warning or notice a few weeks before it went live would have been nice as that would have given us time to build up our roster and 2*s, but then that itself would have generated another round of negative feedback so it's a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" kinda thing.
I think having a buffed 2* as an essential is not such a bad thing for those whose main characters are level 140 and below. Those higher levelled with worse scaling would have issues though since they're handicapped by a 2*. But then again they would too if that event featured a new character so i'm not sure how bad this 2* essential would really be going forward0 -
After discussing the change with my alliance, I am forced to concede that are some potential advantages (mostly insofar as newer players are more likely to have 2*s than 3*s, so this change will help them get prog rewards).
However, I still think the overall change is net-negative for players. 4*s are also required now, which will slant the top placement awards more heavily towards veterans since there is basically no guaranteed way for a new player to get any particular 4*.
Additionally, veterans who are already struggling to keep up with the HP cost of shielding in the slightly more grindy new pvp environment and the roster costs of all these new characters must now maintain at least one extra slot for whatever 2* is essential in a given week (and even if that isn't onerous in terms of cost, making sure you have at least one of each 2* in your queue before each new pve event is a lot of busywork and hardly my idea of fun).
Finally, there was no notice whatsoever about this relatively significant change to the pve format. I don't think there has been any official comment on this issue even now, 2 days into the second such pve event.0 -
I had already essentially quit PVE thanks to scaling, this is another nice nail in that coffin. Didn't even start the last three PVE's.
I have almost all of the 2*'s fully leveled (except terrible Bagman, sold MMN for the HP). I used to really enjoy using them, and still throw them out there on seed teams for something different. If D3 wants us to keep them and use them: great! A couple of suggestions to make that enjoyable for the players - I assume that is the intention.
1) Roster slots free for all characters when first added. Reduced to 500HP won't cut it when a new character is released every week, can't even keep up that rate.
2) Reduce scaling in PVE. Forcing characters to be used is fine, forcing them to be hundreds of levels below mandatory opponents is not.
3) Return of old MMR for PVP. I'd gladly use the boosted 2*'s in PVP! I can't even use my under-leveled 3*'s when going into that mosh pit anymore. Using a 2* for any reason is throwing yourself to the wolves (thanks everyone who has been doing that with 2* OBW this week, easy fodder out there).
4) HP/ISO rewards for using a varied roster. Something like if this is the +10 ISO reward for each time you use a different character without repeating, so matches could ramp up to +300 ISO for 30th character used. Just a quick idea - something else needs to be done other than essential PVE and boosted PVP for the reasons stated in #2/#3.0 -
If they wanted to help newer players, what's the 4* essential for? What avenues are there for a 2*/transition player, outside of mad token luck, to get 4* covers? Before, they could target top 150 placement and have the means to do well in the next pve, now? And how many 2* players have all 2*s?
I would like to see the meltdown when Bagman comes up as an essential - you can't even hope to get him from tokens!0 -
fmftint wrote:Oldboy wrote:Other than the initial upset of finding out i needed a 2* Cap (which i didn't have) for the essential in TaT, i'm pretty ok with the 2* essentials. A little warning or notice a few weeks before it went live would have been nice as that would have given us time to build up our roster and 2*s, but then that itself would have generated another round of negative feedback so it's a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" kinda thing.
I think having a buffed 2* as an essential is not such a bad thing for those whose main characters are level 140 and below. Those higher levelled with worse scaling would have issues though since they're handicapped by a 2*. But then again they would too if that event featured a new character so i'm not sure how bad this 2* essential would really be going forward
That's true. Same for Daken and Thor and whoever else has a 3* counterpart.
But a 2* Cap boosted to 150 is still better than a 1/1/1 boosted new character that you have to use for all essential nodes.0 -
Too many people seem okay with this. I can't be in the minority in feeling wronged when the devs take away your choice to progress (selling 2 Stars for incoming 3 stars) and replacing with a set of awful options , as follows
- stop progressing, just keep your 2 stars and don't make any changes
- lock yourself out of top placement in pve and continue selling 2 stars for 3 stars
- shell out actual money to buy roster slots to accomodate the ever increasing flow of new 3 stars while simultaneously supporting the "slot eaters" that are your old 2 stars
No matter what your HP reserve / income, you'll eventually run out if this current model holds, and you'll have to shell out real money to continue getting "better".
I have no problem spending money. That's fine. In a freemium game, there's essentially -got- to be a way to spend money to kickstart your progress - but money should be just that ; a kickstarter. It should never be a requirement, especially not an ongoing, continuous and ever-increasing requirement.
These devs, man.0 -
Some of the 2* are actually quite playable when boosted to 150. I only have a problem with guys who have no purpose of being played (like Bullseye) that still has to be there. I don't care if a guy sucks. For example Vision sucks, but he has the standard HP, so at least he can go take a Headbutt and make himself useful. A character like Bullseye who has a lower level cap by design will have a hard time to even match something to take a Headbutt for the team because his match strength is likely way below the rest of the characters you're using.
The cost for adding new characters should be capped at some point, like 500 HP or so. I understand you don't need everyone and I have said before that people are probably too much a hoarder especially for the transition guys who really should be focusing on a few key characters instead of hoarding more characters, but you also can't punish people that badly in a game that clearly has a 'gotta catch 'em all' mentality.0 -
Arondite wrote:Now I can quit PvE entirely.
Ah, sarcasm. The lowest form of communication. Lovely.Phantron wrote:Some of the 2* are actually quite playable when boosted to 150. I only have a problem with guys who have no purpose of being played (like Bullseye) that still has to be there. I don't care if a guy sucks. For example Vision sucks, but he has the standard HP, so at least he can go take a Headbutt and make himself useful. A character like Bullseye who has a lower level cap by design will have a hard time to even match something to take a Headbutt for the team because his match strength is likely way below the rest of the characters you're using.
The cost for adding new characters should be capped at some point, like 500 HP or so. I understand you don't need everyone and I have said before that people are probably too much a hoarder especially for the transition guys who really should be focusing on a few key characters instead of hoarding more characters, but you also can't punish people that badly in a game that clearly has a 'gotta catch 'em all' mentality.
This, like 1000 times. If you continue to require expanding rosters to the point of 100 individual characters or so, we need to lessen the HP impact of roster slots. 500 cap sounds reasonable.
Also scaling needs to be reworked, like a lot, if you force us players who have near 300 level nodes to take in a 94 who is only boosted to 150.Arondite wrote:Too many people seem okay with this. I can't be in the minority in feeling wronged when the devs take away your choice to progress (selling 2 Stars for incoming 3 stars) and replacing with a set of awful options , as follows
- stop progressing, just keep your 2 stars and don't make any changes
- lock yourself out of top placement in pve and continue selling 2 stars for 3 stars
- shell out actual money to buy roster slots to accomodate the ever increasing flow of new 3 stars while simultaneously supporting the "slot eaters" that are your old 2 stars
No matter what your HP reserve / income, you'll eventually run out if this current model holds, and you'll have to shell out real money to continue getting "better".
I have no problem spending money. That's fine. In a freemium game, there's essentially -got- to be a way to spend money to kickstart your progress - but money should be just that ; a kickstarter. It should never be a requirement, especially not an ongoing, continuous and ever-increasing requirement.
These devs, man.
You missed the obvious answer of "dedicate a single roster slot to whatever 2* they want to feature", and then you just keep rostering and selling as needed to allow you to play the node. Especially if they keep up the trend where the low progression reward is the next featured 2*, like I'm guessing the next one is OBW.0 -
dr tinykittylove wrote:If they wanted to help newer players, what's the 4* essential for? What avenues are there for a 2*/transition player, outside of mad token luck, to get 4* covers? Before, they could target top 150 placement and have the means to do well in the next pve, now? And how many 2* players have all 2*s?
I would like to see the meltdown when Bagman comes up as an essential - you can't even hope to get him from tokens!
Exactly. They took a step forward for 2*s by adding a 2* essential, then a step backwards with a 4* essential. Others shouldn't misconstrue it as a benefit to 2* rosters, it is simply forcing veterans to shell out HP for 2*s. They know veterans will, they are still around because they try their best in the game for new characters.Phantron wrote:Some of the 2* are actually quite playable when boosted to 150. I only have a problem with guys who have no purpose of being played (like Bullseye) that still has to be there.
Let's not forget terrible versions of their 3* counterparts like 2* Cap, Daken, or even Thor. They pale in comparison even when buffed, and prove absolutely pointless to have.
A couple things I have noticed is that they purposely avoided telling us this very important fact when they "streamlined" their PVEs. Meanwhile, post changes, everyone is struggling to see the benefit of this change when the developers clearly stated HP for rosters was a problem. They were enthusiastic about fixing this, then they make the situation worse for us.
What is going on? Is it something beyond the developers control? I would like to think so, because in that first video they stated they were fighting to help us with roster issues. The silence is what worries me the most.0 -
Could i request that D3 at least not make weaklings the essentials? Weakling daken, HT, Thor, Rogers, etc, guys that will be dumped once people get the strong versions? I had to buy a slot, put 2* cap in and sell him away when vision arrived. No way am I doing that for this pve0
-
The obvious solution is all-Bag Man essentials, all the time.0
-
This is the thing vets were asking for when they wanted advantage over newbie rosters. It's not directed at 2* players, as required 4* shows. It's not directed at transitioners, as they don't have enough HP for all 2*s when trying to squeeze every 3* for DDQ. The only people it directly benefit is those with extreme wide roster with all 4*s and either all 2*s collected or amassed HP bank.
Even though I'm fortunate enough to be in that group (all 4*s, majority 2*s, 9k HP bank) and it gives me easier time competing with others, I still don't really like it, and it seems I'm not alone.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.9K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.3K MPQ General Discussion
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2K MPQ Character Discussion
- 171 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.3K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 6.2K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 13.7K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 508 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.4K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 99 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 424 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 300 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.7K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 381 Other Games
- 142 General Discussion
- 239 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements