[POLL] Should 4* tier dominate over 3* tier?

babinro

This poll is asking whether you prefer the current 'balanced' state of the game or if you still feel that 4*'s should be vastly superior to 3*'s to the point where even the buffed 3*'s are clearly in a league below non-buffed 4*'s.

---

Explanation of 'balanced' and history of Poll below

---

This is a follow up to my poll several months back which concluded pretty definitively that 4*'s should be vastly superior.
Here's the original: http://d3go.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24412&hilit=+Poll

The game has changed a LOT since this poll.

We now have a game where competitive play is largely filled with XF, 4Thor, Fury, Hulkbuster, Xavier, Fist, Cage and then teams made up using the weekly buffed list. While 4*'s are favoured in top tier competitive play (read: 800 points+ PvP) they aren't mandatory either. In fact, you could possibly argue their existence is more due to inflated health pools creating longer potentially deadlier matches rather than pure character strength.

For simplicity, I will call the current state of MPQ 'balanced'.

It should be noted that for the sake of this discussion we are talking about the 4*'s mentioned above and the stronger tiered 3* characters.
This poll also assumes that weekly buffed characters are here to stay and forces us to take them into consideration as we already do.

babinro

My opinion in the prior poll was that I was undecided.
My opinion now with all these changes is that I really enjoy the more balanced version of MPQ.

I think D3 should strive to keep this direction alive and continue their focused buffing of weaker characters while maintaining the occasional albeit rare nerf when characters become unhealthy standouts regardless of weekly buffs.

In fact, the ONLY character I feel demands a nerf right now is Iron Fists Purple which absolutely needs an AP cost increase 8 and could increase it's conditional damage and maybe an additional tile to compensate. His 5 AP cost doesn't make Fist himself OP but creates far too many quick combo's that other AP fixers like Cyke, GSBW, and KK can't possibly compete against. Slowing down the spamming of this skill won't hurt Fist directly much but goes a long way to slowing down the speedy combo's he creates with black spenders or Xavier.

Meanwhile, Luke Cage is a hugely popular 3* even unbuffed but doesn't feel game breaking at all. He should be used as a baseline to judge how strong conditional defense tiles should be like Spidey's purple. Buff spidey to make him appealing relative to Cage's new defensive norm.

Unknown

The problem is, it's almost impossible to get 4*s now if you don't already have them. Making 4*s that much better than 3*s creates permanent over- and under-classes in the game, and would be terrible for its long-term health. When 4*s were more achievable, it made more sense that the 3*-4* transition would follow the 2*-3* one. But, given that the supply of 4* covers is too restricted, and there are too many 4* characters to fill out, they shouldn't be the difference between being competitive and not.

dfields3710

Yes I think 4*s should dominate 3*s. Its absurd that you have to pay double hero coins and double Iso for someone who doesn't compare to 3*s. I know its cheap to have pre-nerf thoress on your roster, dominating everybody else. But she is a god. Xforce is a savage of course he's doing massive amounts of damage. Why pay more for less? Just like the case of Sentry. He should be dominate most of the 3* tier because he is basically a god. Go by how the comics make them look rather then how some players feel. Its a paradox, you hate playing against them but as soon as you get them... you spam them in PvP. It just don't make any sense.

Unknown

Why don't we just remove the * system entirely?

If 4*s aren't supposed to be clearly superior to 3*s, and 3*s to 2*s, and 2*s to 1*s, I'm a bit confused as to what the point of striving for them is. Honestly.

My buffed 1* Juggs was the difference between having my 2* & 3* teams beaten repeatedly by a recent 3* She-Hulk node and finally solving her, so I'm not even sure why I'm excited by trying to "progress."

If building my 3*s beyond level 94 is only going to make my scaling and MMR worse, why am I trying to build them?

As always, I realize my questions could come across as sarcastic, but I'm honestly just seriously confused by some of the mechanics in this game. While it would seem the elementally simple answer to the question in the outside world would be yes, if nothing else, I've learned that MPQ logic can be, well, different.

DBC

Buret0

Drummerboycroy wrote:

...
If building my 3*s beyond level 94 is only going to make my scaling and MMR worse, why am I trying to build them?
...
DBC

I don't know why this myth persists.

I leveled all of my highly covered 3*s to at 120. Scarlet Witch is at 153. 3aken is at 128. SG is at 128. 3orch is at 128.

If anything, PvE has gotten easier. I'm not seeing any kind of insane scaling compared to what I used to see. Yeah, I'm facing a few more level 200s than I used to, but I'm taking them down a lot easier than I ever used to take down the 180 to 190s that I used to really struggle with.

Obviously with weekly character boosting, there is a huge advantage to taking a level 94 3* higher than level 94. A 2* level 94 is maxed out at level 150, a 3* at level 94 is lower.

The highest level that I fought in the last Simulator event at the very end while plugging away to get top 10 was about level 205 the first time I played them and about 230 the last time (community scaling at work). When I was early in transition and holding on to the cap on my 3*s, they would have probably been at least level 180 and a hell of a lot harder.

I don't see any reason to hold 3*s back at level 94. Where there might be value is in holding 4*s back at level 166, but I only make that point because I am not at that stage to really comment on whether holding at 166 is a good idea.

Unknown

Buret0 wrote:

Drummerboycroy wrote:

...
If building my 3*s beyond level 94 is only going to make my scaling and MMR worse, why am I trying to build them?
...
DBC

I don't know why this myth persists.

...
I don't see any reason to hold 3*s back at level 94. Where there might be value is in holding 4*s back at level 166, but I only make that point because I am not at that stage to really comment on whether holding at 166 is a good idea.

I up-voted your response, and then thought I should respond.

I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, honestly. I'm merely parroting what I've repeatedly read in the forum. I honestly don't know if it's true, part true, mostly false, or completely false.

The struggle I have is that my scaling with level 94 2*s and a few level 80-90 3*s is currently so onerous, once I let the genie out of the bottle and start leveling beyond the "glass ceiling," there's no way to go back if things get even worse. Really, really, REALLY frustrating.

But yeah, I don't even know if any of it makes any appreciable difference, so there's that. Really appreciating all the clarity in MPQ these days... no, not really.

DBC

Ducky

The problem with this poll is that most people don't have usable 4*s to adequately compare to their buffed 3*s.

Other than XF, FT, and maybe Fury, most people don't have the other 4*s cover maxed and fully leveled.

For the amount of resources that go into them, I believe they should be slightly stronger than they are now, but not overwhelmingly so. If I am going to be putting in all that ISO, I would like to feel rewarded for doing so afterwards.

Vhailorx

PVE scaling will be affected (at least indirectly) by levels, but it's not as nudging a single 3* to 95 will instantly result in level 395s everywhere in PVE. The thing to avoid is having one 3* at 140 or 150, and nothing else but 94s. That can lead to problems when your one good 3* isn't available (either because you are out of healthpacks or because they are the opponent). Personally, I have gone with the slow/steady strategy of gradually raising a modest roster of 3*s up above 94, and that hasn't had a crippling effect on my pve scaling yet.

As for babinro's topic:

I think it's a mistake for 4* covers to be so much harder to acquire than 3*s, but also only a little bit better than 3*s.

In my opinion, the intentionally narrow gap between the 3* tier and the 4* tier is a mistake because it gives the devs little room for error.

As an example, assume that all characters' power level can be simply described on a 1-100 scale. Additionally, assume the target range for 3*s is 70-85, and the target range for 4*s is 87-95, so 4*s are intended to sit close to, but just above 3*. The problem is that character design isn't perfect. Sometimes characters ended up stronger or weaker than intended. When the 4* tier is so close to the 3* tier, a 4* that ends up just a little too weak, or a 3* that ends up just a little too strong will completely undermine the reward structure (no one will want the 4* that is too weak, and everyone will gravitate towards the 3* that is too strong).

On the other hand, if the 4* tier is intended to sit much further above the 3* tier, then the devs have more room to maneuver, and an outlier character won't break the reward structure of the game. (though if 4*s were supposed to be much better than 3*s, they would also have to be easier to acquire, or else the game would develop an entrenched over/under class as was happening Nov-March with Thorverine).

TLCstormz

I don't understand the logic in the voting, thus far.

Are people confused?

What's the point in having a 4* NOT being better than a 3*? lol

Would everyone have preferred 3*s to be no better than 2*s? And 2*s be no better than 1*s?



(and don't bring up exceptions, like OBW, Ares, etc)

Unknown

Yes 4*'s should be better then 3*'s, and I'm saying this as someone with very little in the way of covers for those 4*'s.

But I'm in total agreement with Ben Grimm, something needs to be done, because otherwise, we'll end up with a over/under class of players. The first thing that should be changed is the reward structure for newly released 4*'s, in that you get one for placing t150 just like any normal event, with the 2nd cover rewarded at t50. These covers are so rare as they are, that another cover or two early on, isn't going to upset the balance of the game.


As for the whole MMR and leveling past 94, I think the belief persists, because people constantly look at who's placing in the top 10. While you'll see players with high end teams, you'll also see players with teams that don't go past 94/70/40. So I guess people think, 'why bother leveling my characters, when a fully cover team of 70's will also net me the same final result?' Personally, I've taken the slow and steady approach to leveling, move some characters in groups.

Unknown

Original topic: I would have voted for a buffed 3* ~= a normal 4*, not the best buffed 3* ~= a normal 4*.

If you have 40 characters, and you can take 35 of them to 94, but only 3 of them to 166, what's better?

For PVP, level them up as soon as possible. Your power level goes up without any drawback.
For PVE, if you level up the max 3*s, you're vastly limiting your options as to who you can use in PVE against the top scaled enemies; you're going to lose a few PVE battles, and won't have as good a B team in comparison.

The 'myth' persists because it's not a myth. It depends on your roster.

babinro

Ben Grimm wrote:

The problem is, it's almost impossible to get 4*s now if you don't already have them. Making 4*s that much better than 3*s creates permanent over- and under-classes in the game, and would be terrible for its long-term health. When 4*s were more achievable, it made more sense that the 3*-4* transition would follow the 2*-3* one. But, given that the supply of 4* covers is too restricted, and there are too many 4* characters to fill out, they shouldn't be the difference between being competitive and not.

This is certainly a related problem but the poll remains relevant regardless. Suppose D3 makes 4*'s more accessible in the next year. Do we want them to feel like the jump from ** to *** or do we want things to feel more balanced between 3*'s and 4*'s?

In other words, would people rather chase carrots or be relaxed and optional collectors?

Unknown

babinro wrote:

Ben Grimm wrote:

The problem is, it's almost impossible to get 4*s now if you don't already have them. Making 4*s that much better than 3*s creates permanent over- and under-classes in the game, and would be terrible for its long-term health. When 4*s were more achievable, it made more sense that the 3*-4* transition would follow the 2*-3* one. But, given that the supply of 4* covers is too restricted, and there are too many 4* characters to fill out, they shouldn't be the difference between being competitive and not.

This is certainly a related problem but the poll remains relevant regardless. Suppose D3 makes 4*'s more accessible in the next year. Do we want them to feel like the jump from ** to *** or do we want things to feel more balanced between 3*'s and 4*'s?

In other words, would people rather chase carrots or be relaxed and optional collectors?

4*s were easier to get for a while, and a few of them dominated PVP. That was a relatively fair arrangement, as I saw it - when they nerfed 4or, I had 7 covers for her, was about to get three from Daily Rewards and was prepared to buy or hit PVP for the last three. There was a clear 3*-4* progression, and it was achievable for someone who wasn't dominant in PVP.

Then they both nerfed the top 4*s and made then much harder to get. And the transition ended, for the most part, for most people. I think people liked the way it used to be more, but I can't speak for everyone.

Unknown

I feel like there's 2 ways to make it work.

One, have the 4*'s basically equal to the 3* because otherwise with the 4*'s so hard to obtain the only people who can get them maxed are people spending massive amounts of money. If the 4*'s are way better than 3*'s AND practically impossible to get covers for, the game has become pay-to-win.

Two, is make the 4*'s better, but make them obtainable to create a real transition from 3* to 4*. On a heroic token, make it something like 75% 2*, 20% 3*, 5% 4*, bring one into the Daily Deadpool every few weeks, things like that.

TheVulture

Voted:
"No - Only the buffed 4*'s should be able to stand up against the best buffed 3*'s. Making non-buffed 4*'s clearly weaker."

Obviously not happy to see anyone's resources & effort go to waste (discounting when it's really obvious a nerf needs to happen e.g. old Ragnorak), but I just don't see any need for 4* characters beyond serving as vanity items.

Clearly it was a wasted opportunity when there was just X-Force and Invisible Woman and both were unplayably awful, but now that focus has swung to wards some semblance of establishing a 4* tier I'm not really seeing any positives to the experiment...

> We get a few more awful ones who tarnish 4* as vanity items.
> The influx makes 4* collection harder for the 4* tier 1%.
> Occasionally a broken power/combo slips through, leading to nerfs & disgruntlement.
> The game gets further slowed by big dull health-point bricks.
> 3* Players get **** having to make roster space for low-cover no-use characters...
> Pressure for which is now amplified by 4* characters reaching sufficient mass to become essentials.

What I'd love to see happen is:

1. No new 4* characters for a long time.
2. Existing 4* characters balanced/designed to each offer something mechanically that no 3* currently does.
3. An end to essential 4* characters, and their roster consuming ways.

simonsez

Ben Grimm wrote:

The problem is, it's almost impossible to get 4*s now if you don't already have them.

I don't see that at all. In this past PvP, all you needed for 1k was a DP and Cage. Last week, you just needed Fist/BP. As this poll is implying, 4*s aren't any better than buffed 3*s, and in these past 2 weeks especially, it was particularly 3*s you'd see in every high level battle, not 4*s.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

Ben Grimm wrote:

The problem is, it's almost impossible to get 4*s now if you don't already have them.

I don't see that at all. In this past PvP, all you needed for 1k was a DP and Cage. Last week, you just needed Fist/BP. As this poll is implying, 4*s aren't any better than buffed 3*s, and in these past 2 weeks especially, it was particularly 3*s you'd see in every high level battle, not 4*s.

And a schedule that allows you to time shield hops around shield cooldowns. And a time slice that has lots of people at the high levels. And a willingness to devote the amount of time and HP that it takes to get to 1000 HP. And either a team that discourages attacks (which means probably a Professor X or Hulkbuster) or a ton of luck.

simonsez

Ben Grimm wrote:

And a schedule that allows you to time shield hops around shield cooldowns. And a time slice that has lots of people at the high levels. And a willingness to devote the amount of time and HP that it takes to get to 1000 HP. And either a team that discourages attacks (which means probably a Professor X or Hulkbuster) or a ton of luck.

A couple things: yes, it takes effort. It should. But that wasn't your original complaint. Second, NO TEAM discourages attacks. You will be attacked no matter what you have up. This is a complete non-factor. And speaking from experience, PX is an attack magnet, because he has low health and no direct attacks and the AI doesn't make a match5 unless it has to or it drops from above.

Colognoisseur

I disagree with the OP because I think the second choice is actually the Status Quo. My 4* are slightly better than buffed 3* and the buffed 4* have been so good I've been using them in each round of weekly buffed characters.
I think the reason many feel the stated Staus Quo chance is actually the Status Quo is because of the X-Force and 4hor nerfs. When these are buffed they are both better than almost any 3* by a large gap. Thr increased health and damage makes them significantly better.
As people start to cover and iso max professor x hulkbuster and kingpin I think the community as a whole will realize these 4*'s are worth the effort.

El Satanno

I actually didn't vote because I think the question is somewhat misleading in a vacuum. I could reply two ways, depending on what assumption you wish to make about the future of the game:

If the reward structure stays the same, then 4* characters should stay as they are. Better on average, but not a ton better. This is because unless you want to exacerbate the situation where the Haves utterly dominate the Have Nots, you can't have the old X-Force/4or situation going on. Honestly, I kinda like the way things are now. I am speaking from a position of somewhat advantage in that I have a very broad 3* roster and a 270 X-Force. With the nerfs and the boosts to various characters, I have a challenging but very much possible time getting to 1k in PvP for that progression cover.

On the other hand, if the reward structure were to be reworked (and I think it desperately needs it across almost every event in the game), then I would say 4* characters should be crazy like 3* are crazy over 2*. However the game would definitely need to be such that the Haves can play somewhere else and not completely stop the Have Nots from joining the club. Got your 4* guys in working order? Come play in the Promised Land and see how they stack up for bigger prizes! Meanwhile, the surface dwellers can carry on in the status quo and eventually ascend into the heavens.