A big "Thank you" to D3 for introducing 2 Star Essentials.

Malcrof

daibar wrote:

Malcrof wrote:

Or, why not have different levels of the event? When you sign up, you are given choices based on your roster.. Easy/Intermediate/Hard.. so you only compete against like players. This way, Easy, 2* essentials, Intermediate 3* essentials, Hard 4* essentials, rewards are the same.. This way, we create a real path for 4* transitioning, give the new peeps their own stomping ground to be new peeps, and let us transitioners not lose to someone with a max level 81 roster in placement.

Simplicity and more correct sharding. With the current ranking system it lets most people fall within the rewards bracket they deserve, with a lesser chance of creating death shards. Further, this automatically places people already in difficulty shards. Otherwise, compare to any game with manual difficulties, and there's a lot of people who want to feel like they're the best. This reminds me of a story about my friend who was playing XCOM. When he started, he picked hardcore difficulty, saying "Yeah... I'm hardcore," and then he was promptly curbstomped. So he picked "hard" saying, "I'm still pretty hardcore," and then a couple missions in it was too hard for him. So he ended up playing on normal. Few people want to be just 'normal', especially when they pride themselves on their gaming prowess.

Having difficulty levels opens up so many cans of worms. Some hardcore players will jump into easy brackets just to trounce the competition. Some people might try an event at a difficulty harder than normal, and then realize it's too hard so quit for the week, or how ever long the event lasts. If that player isn't coming back daily for a week, there's a decent chance the game will lose that player.

That is why i put in the choices based on your roster. If you have 3 chars over level 120, then no more easy for you, 3 over 190 or so, then no more intermediate.. just examples.. we can prevent having people in the wrong places.

GritsNGravy

I don't like required 2* Cap that I have to use when I have a perfectly good 3* Cap. If the boosted is separate from required on these nodes I'm happy camper. However I do actually think this is worse for early players. In the starter brackets if you fought hard and earned the last 3* you'd have a much better chance at placing in the next event because you'd get 3 nodes that many others wouldn't. That kept you invested and interested in getting the next one, etc, etc...

I actually think this mechanic was one of the main reasons the game is so "sticky" for so many people. I think this change is actually going to hurt getting new people to stick with the game. Now all that fighting hard for the new guy gets you is 1 of 3, so from a new player perspective, why try right?

Arondite

Lerysh wrote:

Arondite wrote:

Now I can quit PvE entirely.

Ah, sarcasm. The lowest form of communication. Lovely.

Not a word in this thread [that I've posted] has been sarcastic in the slightest. And if sarcasm is the lowest form of communication (which is, in and of itself, a ridiculous assertion. I believe you were looking for the common phrase "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit") - condescension would have to be the lowest form of debate.

Arondite

optimus2861 wrote:

Arondite wrote:

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.

I understand your naivety. I shared it once. This game isn't my first freemium rodeo. They all work like this. They entice you to spend money, and give you a power boost. How intoxicating! Then that boost wears off. Now you have to spend money again. Another boost! It wears off again. You stop spending money for a while. You stagnate. The game gets hard. You feel the pull to spend money again....

This game is slow in pumping out new characters/cards compared to others I've played, too (Transformers: Legends, Blood Brothers, Star Wars: Force Collection). And when you do get a strong character fully built, he's not immediately power-crept into oblivion by the new shiny. And the (almost) whales-only 4* class of characters doesn't totally blast the lower classes into pieces as in all those other games, either (I gave up all of those games for that very reason; the top tiers of cards/characters ran roughshod over everything else, and it just kept expanding & getting worse over time).

If DeNA were developing this game, the 4* would obliterate the 3*, they'd probably have moved on to 5* or even 6* by now (who would in turn obliterate the 4*), they'd be pumping out multiple new characters every event, and they'd be buffing new characters only every event to really make you feel the "buy now!" pressure on tokens.

If Konami were developing, we'd have 5 versions of Doctor Doom at 4* level alone (if not 5*), plus another 2 or 3 at 3*, and strangely only one or two mediocre Spideys (it was pretty stupid to see how many 5* Darth Maul cards they pumped into the game before getting around to making a decent 5* Luke).

So.. take the good with the bad. This game could be a lot worse.

Of all the examples available, Blood Brothers made it in your "best examples" list? That game is incredibly easy, and I have a team of Legends without having spent a red cent on the game.

Unknown

I was really angry about this, at first, but now that I think about it, this may be the best thing to happen to me in a long time.

This game is a trap. I realized this shortly after I began playing it, having sunk my first 90 dollars of in-app purchases ever, into it. I'd spent the money, and I couldn't let it go. Plus, I liked the game, more or less.

This game has always had its problems, but I've stuck with it. I've quit a couple of times, and returned only to redouble my efforts. It's been an obsession and a time suck. It's been as close to an addiction as a game can get.

I really have behaved like an addict. When the game's timer takes precedence over life, it's time to quit, if you can. But I couldn't. I had to get the next character. How could I live without the next character?

A few things have happened lately to take the edge off of this: I've cover-maxed 18 3 characters, and I have my teams figured. I have several winning combos, and any character I get after this will augment but not supplant them. My next step would have been the 4 transition, but despite promises to make it easier, they've made it all but impossible. I'd have to spend money on the ones I'd managed to get the colours for, and I did. I paid for X-Force maybe two or three weeks before they took away his dominance.

Now what should I do? I want Xavier and Kingpin, but I can't get them.

You know what I don't want? Vision. He doesn't seem all that great, and I'd have to buy a roster slot for him. I'm not going to use him. So that's done.

And then came the double-whammy of disrespect that finally broke my habit: A mother-flippin' PVE starts during the Ultron event, and doesn't end until days after; and they change the pattern of essentials to require 2, 3, and 4 characters to hit every node. I've now ignored enough PVP and PVE events that it's become my new habit. And no matter what now, I will never be able to do every node in a PVE due to lack of characters.

No, that's not entirely true. I may statistically find that the combination they've chosen are all in my roster, but who cares? It's likely the prize will be a character I've already finished. So why bother?

I like this game, but now that Deadpool Daily is giving me several thousand ISO and two gold tokens every day, on top of a possible new cover, I can play casually and still get ahead.

I mean, not ahead. I'm not going to win four covers in PVP or anything. But there's no longer a burning need to grind for covers.

So there you have it: we've finally found the end game, by which I mean there isn't one. You can't win. You've already lost. You lost your OP characters, and you sold your obsolete ones. Now it's just fun, if you want to have it.

Fun for me would be finishing Iron Fist, Kamala Khan, and Luke Cage. But I can wait.

Buret0

SnowcaTT wrote:

It's hard to see how this is directed at any transitioners.

If you are 2*->3* transitioner, you probably don't have the 4* to do that essential.
If you are 3*->4* transitioner, you probably have hard enough scaling an under-leveled 4* is going to make that node nearly impossible.
If you are 4* heavy (or 3*->4*), you possibly don't have the 2* to do that essential.

To be honest, I have almost all of the 4* characters. I ended up with 4 Hulkbuster covers after Ultron and got a fifth from a random token. I've got my 3 XF covers from daily logins. I've got 5 4hor covers (none of them red). I've got 2 Electra covers (neither Black). I've got the Blue IW cover (somehow I've had her one blue cover since before I even had any 3* covers, and one blue cover IW was the worst character in my roster before they changed her, so no idea how I managed to hold on to it). I've got a purple Kingpin. A Yellow PX. And I've got a Red Starlord.

So I guess I'm missing Nick Fury, Devil Dinosaur (I'm day 198, so they will be awhile), and... is that it?

So anyway, I just fully covered my first 3* today, which means I'm a 2* to 3* transitioner. While we might not have all of the 4* covers, we aren't going to be missing the 4*s in all of those nodes... they just will be undercovered and they will be underleveled compared to our 3*s.

Unknown

Malcrof wrote:

daibar wrote:

Malcrof wrote:

Or, why not have different levels of the event? When you sign up, you are given choices based on your roster.. Easy/Intermediate/Hard.. so you only compete against like players. This way, Easy, 2* essentials, Intermediate 3* essentials, Hard 4* essentials, rewards are the same.. This way, we create a real path for 4* transitioning, give the new peeps their own stomping ground to be new peeps, and let us transitioners not lose to someone with a max level 81 roster in placement.

Simplicity and more correct sharding. With the current ranking system it lets most people fall within the rewards bracket they deserve, with a lesser chance of creating death shards. Further, this automatically places people already in difficulty shards. Otherwise, compare to any game with manual difficulties, and there's a lot of people who want to feel like they're the best. This reminds me of a story about my friend who was playing XCOM. When he started, he picked hardcore difficulty, saying "Yeah... I'm hardcore," and then he was promptly curbstomped. So he picked "hard" saying, "I'm still pretty hardcore," and then a couple missions in it was too hard for him. So he ended up playing on normal. Few people want to be just 'normal', especially when they pride themselves on their gaming prowess.

Having difficulty levels opens up so many cans of worms. Some hardcore players will jump into easy brackets just to trounce the competition. Some people might try an event at a difficulty harder than normal, and then realize it's too hard so quit for the week, or how ever long the event lasts. If that player isn't coming back daily for a week, there's a decent chance the game will lose that player.

That is why i put in the choices based on your roster. If you have 3 chars over level 120, then no more easy for you, 3 over 190 or so, then no more intermediate.. just examples.. we can prevent having people in the wrong places.

Can you imagine the guy who leveled his 3rd character to 120, and the realizes that they can't play on easy any more, and then comes and complains that he doesn't have time to play not on easy because they just want a quick casual game? How many people would there be camping with 20 heroes as level 119? How much extra configuration work would go in to make sure scaling worked correctly at each of the brackets, with people on hard complaining about the ridiculous scaling? Also, this still doesn't prevent a person from choosing a hard bracket and then not playing after the first day. At least with the current PVE's there's often an easy path and a hard path.

I understand the sentiment, and think it's a good idea, only ... it's already mostly implemented through scaling and sharding, except with equal prizes for all shards. I don't think it's worth the effort and future complaints, though many will disagree. Seems like a grass greener thing to me.

@Dauthi, no, they took less time to make the essential node exactly 1 character. Making it open to all characters of one type seems to take slightly more time and is less common, even though we did see it recently with Ultron. Not sure if you fully read the response or just skimmed or you have a different programmatic understanding of the game.

@GritsNGravy Agreed. I know a lot of people were complaining that you couldn't take a vacation from the game because then you'd be screwed for the next PVE. Now you can rejoin at any time, and only have a minor disadvantage from the rest of the crowd. The 2* progression is easy enough that you can get it in a day or so. I think this change makes it much easier on people who want to go on a vacation or take a weekend off from MPQ. As someone who plays casual, has a job (not mpq) and other real life schedules, I like it a lot.

Cymmina

daibar wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

The only problem with this logic is it asks the question: why don't they have interchangeable 2*/3*s if this is their goal? It would have exactly the same intended value that you are pointing too, just without us having to spend HP on roster slots. They proved they can, so why won't they? Instead they take the extra time to make sure the 3* alternative is locked out.

One possible explanation is that they don't want 1* heroes usable for essentials. eg Hawkeye, Black Widow, Storm have 1* equivalents. It seems they have essential characters programmed in as either a specific incarnation of a character OR any version of the character. They don't seem to have something that only allows the 2* and 3* version of a character, but not the 1*.

You say that like it is impossible to add a restriction that forces 2* or higher. They have other types of restrictions (Balance of Power, Heroic, etc.). DDQ restricts by rarity. Enemy of the State locks out Wolverine (all incarnations) for specific subs.

Dauthi

daibar wrote:

@Dauthi, no, they took less time to make the essential node exactly 1 character. Making it open to all characters of one type seems to take slightly more time and is less common, even though we did see it recently with Ultron. Not sure if you fully read the response or just skimmed or you have a different programmatic understanding of the game.

Let me explain my reasoning then, in the previous PVE, when you selected characters for the 2* essential, 3* captain america was specifically removed from being used (Xed out at the end of your roster along with the characters the AI is using). It wasn't that you could only use 2* caps for that node.

I don't recall it always being this way, so I assume the 2* essentials allow 3* versions unless they ban that character for the node. This might just be the way it has to be done to make 2* essentials, and could account for the mistake halfway through the last PVE where they forgot to ban 3* cap for the 2* node.

Unknown

GritsNGravy wrote:

I don't like required 2* Cap that I have to use when I have a perfectly good 3* Cap. If the boosted is separate from required on these nodes I'm happy camper. However I do actually think this is worse for early players. In the starter brackets if you fought hard and earned the last 3* you'd have a much better chance at placing in the next event because you'd get 3 nodes that many others wouldn't. That kept you invested and interested in getting the next one, etc, etc...

I actually think this mechanic was one of the main reasons the game is so "sticky" for so many people. I think this change is actually going to hurt getting new people to stick with the game. Now all that fighting hard for the new guy gets you is 1 of 3, so from a new player perspective, why try right?

This would be less of an issue if 2* Cap wasn't just so so bad. When the lazy characters were released someone put a power comparison somewhere that put the 3* version at something like 200% of a 2* version (1100 damage for 2* Thor, 2200 damage for 3* Thor). Captain America's Red is a whopping 628% scale increase over 2* version. And no one is going to argue that 3* Cap is OP, so 2* cap is WAAAAAY under powered.

In the current, I don't mind using my 2* Thor. At 150 he's aproximately 70% the strength of 3* Thor, and 70% Thor is better than a lot of unbuffed 3*s. In the next one, I will not have 2* Wolverine so I need to slot a 1 cover probably green wolverine to deal with that. Not a huge deal. This will mean the 2* realm balance needs to be looked at however, because I will NOT be bringing Bagman into a fight even if you force me to. Not to mention Cap, Moonstone, Bullseye and the others who are less than great.

Unknown

I was wondering about this change since the Ultron event.... But now all I see is another poorly thought out change by the developers!

In principle the change is a nice idea, allowing for newer players to get in on essentials. However this actually hurts the veteran players. Especially those with maxed out 3 stars or 4 stars, primarily due to scaling! Its hard enough fighting things with your 3 star characters that are scaled up based on your 4 maxed four star, worse if the the 4Star is buffed, but to compound the issue on a 2 Star essential!

I always accused the development team of being clueless! This doesn't change my opinion in any shape or form.

You have good ideas here and there, but they are poorly thought out, and seem very reactionary! The ultron event is a good example, nice idea but the number of problems it created in terms of gating people from the alliance in getting all the progress rewards in the first run if Ultron wave 8 was defeated.

Really you guys need to sit down and think about the changes you make.

i.e. how the proposed impact all types of players from the new, relatively new, established, the veterans and the hardcore players!

Cause its fairly obvious you don't fully think things out! Is this a harsh criticism? I don't believe it is!

Second thing is you don't really empower your community by discussing proposed changes and actually seeing their reaction/feedback and revisit your plans! True healing for example? Did it stop prologue healing? hell no! ppl might have stopped using black widow, but they moved on to daken and various incarnations of wolverine! As far as most vets are concerned that was a lame attempt at trying to sell more health packs!

If you truly wanted to stop prologue healing, you would have just changed it to once a person has acquired all the rewards from a prologue node, that prologue node would be locked out on that account! Eventually to the point the whole of the prologue is locked out, no more prologue healing!

What you should have done with the 2 star essential node is instead of making it a specific 2 star essential. Make it a character essential like that which was used in the ultron event. I.e. an Ironman essential node, so any version of iron man, 4, 3 or 1 star could be used! Yes this also could mean more room to introduce more new 1 and 2 star characters! Giving people a break from grinding out like crazy on every new cover you bring out! As most vets won't really work on getting a new 1 or 2 star character as they can get them fairly easily from standard packs...

If anything your character release rotation should be something along the lines of alternating between a brand new character and an old character so to give vets bit more of a break from burn out... e.g.

A new 4 Star, an old character, a new 3 star, an old character, a new 2 star, an old character then recycle!

there are likely some people who won't like this due to increased roster size pressure, but this I feel is probably the best balance with the way you want to go if you really really want to keep releasing new and 3 and 4 star characters

Tie El Min

I don't have all released at the moment of the characters (and don't have any maxed 3*) and I often have no enough HP for slots or shields. But I don't see in this innovation threat or negativity. Moreover, I love it! If I had no chance for a essential node, but now everything has changed for the better. I hope that with time, essential nodes will be 1* heroes.

Unknown

Dauthi wrote:

daibar wrote:

@Dauthi, no, they took less time to make the essential node exactly 1 character. Making it open to all characters of one type seems to take slightly more time and is less common, even though we did see it recently with Ultron. Not sure if you fully read the response or just skimmed or you have a different programmatic understanding of the game.

Let me explain my reasoning then, in the previous PVE, when you selected characters for the 2* essential, 3* captain america was specifically removed from being used (Xed out at the end of your roster along with the characters the AI is using). It wasn't that you could only use 2* caps for that node.

I don't recall it always being this way, so I assume the 2* essentials allow 3* versions unless they ban that character for the node. This might just be the way it has to be done to make 2* essentials, and could account for the mistake halfway through the last PVE where they forgot to ban 3* cap for the 2* node.

Ah ok, 2* haven't been essential for ages, so there's no wonder there's some confusion. The assumption isn't quite right. Almost every event with an essential character requires exactly 1 character, single version. For example almost all pvp's with a single 3* featured don't allow anyone but the 3* character. When 3* Steve Rogers was essential last time in PVE (besides Ultron), you couldn't use TinyCap. Since 3/4 of the nodes only allowed 2* Cap, it was probably the intent for all 4 of the nodes to behave this way. The events where you could use any form of a character as an essential are actually quite rare, and a mistake almost as often as they are intentional.

Although I haven't crawled the code, I'm guessing that they have some variable for an essential, id, where id refers either to a specific character or specific character grouping. Something like:

1 IM 35
2 BW
...
10 MNThor
11 Cap**
12 AWolv
...
32 X-Force
33 Wolverine All
34 Captain America All

and the person coding the event accidentally put in the number for Captain America (all) instead of Captain America (2*), while the QA tester only tested Cap 2*, or logged the issue without it getting fixed.

Cymmina wrote:

You say that like it is impossible to add a restriction that forces 2* or higher. They have other types of restrictions (Balance of Power, Heroic, etc.). DDQ restricts by rarity. Enemy of the State locks out Wolverine (all incarnations) for specific subs.

No, I implied it would be more work for them, hardly impossible but easier to screw up.

My next roster slot is 800 hp. Having to fork out for another single roster slot to remain competitive in PVE is a little bit of a pain. You should only really need one extra slot for a 2* if you're a vet, so I'm not sure why some vets are the ones making the most noise.

--edit - minor grammar fix.

Dauthi

daibar wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

daibar wrote:

@Dauthi, no, they took less time to make the essential node exactly 1 character. Making it open to all characters of one type seems to take slightly more time and is less common, even though we did see it recently with Ultron. Not sure if you fully read the response or just skimmed or you have a different programmatic understanding of the game.

Let me explain my reasoning then, in the previous PVE, when you selected characters for the 2* essential, 3* captain america was specifically removed from being used (Xed out at the end of your roster along with the characters the AI is using). It wasn't that you could only use 2* caps for that node.

I don't recall it always being this way, so I assume the 2* essentials allow 3* versions unless they ban that character for the node. This might just be the way it has to be done to make 2* essentials, and could account for the mistake halfway through the last PVE where they forgot to ban 3* cap for the 2* node.

Ah ok, 2* haven't been essential for ages, so there's no wonder there's some confusion. The assumption isn't quite right. Almost every event with an essential character requires exactly 1 character, single version. For example almost all pvp's with a single 3* featured don't allow anyone but the 3* character. When 3* Steve Rogers was essential last time in PVE (besides Ultron), you couldn't use TinyCap. Since 3/4 of the nodes only allowed 2* Cap, it was probably the intent for all 4 of the nodes to behave this way. The events where you could use any form of a character as an essential are actually quite rare, and almost a mistake as often as they are intentional.

Although I haven't crawled the code, I'm guessing that they have some variable for an essential, id, where id refers either to a specific character or specific character grouping. Something like:

1 IM 35
2 BW
...
10 MNThor
11 Cap**
12 AWolv
...
32 X-Force
33 Wolverine All
34 Captain America All

and the person coding the event accidentally put in the number for Captain America (all) instead of Captain America (2*), while the QA tester only tested Cap 2*, or logged the issue without it getting fixed.

This was my initial thoughts too until I seen the banned 3* Caps. It made me wonder if they don't have an ID for a required 2* cap (for whatever reason) and instead put in "Captain America All" then simply banned the 2* version.

I guess the question is, when 3* caps is the requirement does it ban 2* along with the characters the AI is using? I have never bothered to check since it would be silly to substitute my 3* for the 2* equivalent.


We can't check in the current PVE thanks to heroics banning everyone but a select few heroes, so in the future PVE's ill continue to observe it

Unknown

I don't mind 2* essential characters, but I'd much rather see something like how the Ultron event ran where it's a required character and any version of them qualifies even if they're not boosted. I let go of 2* Cap because I have 3* Cap, and it's not interesting to have 2 characters with same or nearly the same power sets (though 2* Cap has the better costume).

Buret0

Dauthi wrote:

I guess the question is, when 3* caps is the requirement does it ban 2* along with the characters the AI is using? I have never bothered to check since it would be silly to substitute my 3* for the 2* equivalent.

Yes. When Steve Rogers 3* Cap was required, and I didn't have it, my 2* Cap was not substitutable.

Same thing when Grey Suit is required, you cannot use OBW or 1*.
Same thing for Thor 3*.

The point of the RC has always been to punish those who didn't obtain the reward in the last event. It puts players on a treadmill where they have to always stay competitive or they risk being uncompetitive in the next event.

In the past, when they introduced a 4*, they would always make one of the three RC nodes the new 4* and then make the other two nodes the same 3*.

I figured they were going to continue doing essentially the same thing, except make it one 3* and one 2*.
Then, when Vision was released, they STILL included a 2*/3*/4*, even though a 4* character (IW) was not released in the last event, nor was she a reward to my knowledge.

So while I wasn't so concerned about the 2/3/4 requirement in the last event, because it was a 4* release and it was expected that not every node would be a Hulkbuster node.

But they have now broken tradition. Instead of making three Vision required character nodes for this release, only one of the nodes required him. While this is great for me, because I took the Vision event off, it seems strange that they would make a permanent break from general practice without any kind of communication.

Again, if it was a one off for future Post-4* character release events, I could understand not telling us. If this is now the new go forward, people should be informed or their could have been discussion. Or not.

Buret0

jclast wrote:

I don't mind 2* essential characters, but I'd much rather see something like how the Ultron event ran where it's a required character and any version of them qualifies even if they're not boosted. I let go of 2* Cap because I have 3* Cap, and it's not interesting to have 2 characters with same or nearly the same power sets (though 2* Cap has the better costume).

I guess, what is the point of the Required Character Node? It encourages roster diversity for those that wish to be competitive, and it discourages people without roster diversity from trying to compete.

However, now that there are three RCs, with the 2* RC being the node with the fewest points, it is entirely possible to end up top 10 to top 25, depending on the slice, in each sub-event. Generally that will lead to a top 10 finish.

That's a lot closer than you used to be able to get if you didn't have the 3* RC (and had to grind out the nodes until you got the RC as the top progression reward).

Unknown

Buret0 wrote:

jclast wrote:

I don't mind 2* essential characters, but I'd much rather see something like how the Ultron event ran where it's a required character and any version of them qualifies even if they're not boosted. I let go of 2* Cap because I have 3* Cap, and it's not interesting to have 2 characters with same or nearly the same power sets (though 2* Cap has the better costume).

I guess, what is the point of the Required Character Node? It encourages roster diversity for those that wish to be competitive, and it discourages people without roster diversity from trying to compete.

However, now that there are three RCs, with the 2* RC being the node with the fewest points, it is entirely possible to end up top 10 to top 25, depending on the slice, in each sub-event. Generally that will lead to a top 10 finish.

That's a lot closer than you used to be able to get if you didn't have the 3* RC (and had to grind out the nodes until you got the RC as the top progression reward).

I guess I can see that. The thing that bugs me, though, is that some characters feel like out-and-out replacements for others. What does 2* Thor do that 3* Thor doesn't? What does 2* Cap do that 3* Cap doesn't? Nothing. Both are great 2* characters (in my opinion) that are designed to be replaced by their 3* version. 1* and 3* Storm are like that, too for me.

I can understand requiring a specific Black Widow as all of her forms feel and play differently. Grey Suit Black Widow plays nothing like Original Black Widow, but 3* Human Torch plays exactly the same as 2* Human Torch with more hit points and higher damage.

Unknown

I have a lot to say on this matter and I've re-written my post 4 times already, but there's just too much wrong with limiting nodes to required characters at any point. It's never a good thing for progression or incentive, and honestly it's stupid seeing your progress thrown away on you.

I have 3* cap, never bothered with 2* because his numbers are terrible even for a 2*. This event made me buy a few standard recruit tokens to get a cap cover, didn't matter that it was just his stun, hell, it could've been his yellow for all I cared, I wasn't going to use him either way, It didn't make me want to build one, if I have the required character but they only have 2 covers in something they're useless anyway, so what's the point? Sure it means less people are capable of hitting top100 which makes competition a little easier, but you know what else would do that? shrink the leaderboards, have more shards, do a better job of sorting out people competing against each other, make rewards more flexible, maybe have event tokens redeemable for an ability that you get to choose so people can be happy with just hitting top 100 and don't have to fight for top10 to get that one last cover they need.
(0-5-5 + 0-1-0 3* Daken now as an aside, I'm building a second one because I want to see how many dupes I can get before I get 1 Pheromone Rage)

Malcrof

i don't mind 2* essentials, but let's make it for characters that have no 3* equivalent. Hawkeye, Ares, Moonstone, OBW(including OBW because 3* GSBW is a completely different char, no similarities at all)

That would make the most sense.