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

Xenoberyll

Colognoisseur wrote:

I disagree with the OP because I think the second choice is actually the Status Quo. My 4* are slightly better than buffed 3* ...

Buffed 3 Star Thor is worse than unbuffed 4 star Thor?
Buffed Cyclops is worse than unbuffed Xforce?
Buffed Iron Fist is worse than unbuffed Nick Fury?

I can't say i agree with you there. With mediocre 3stars it might be arguable but even there i think Gamora beats Elektra for example. The best 3stars are clear winners over unbuffed 4's imho.

babinro

Colognoisseur wrote:

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.

I somewhat agree with you.
My poll as made out of a sense of perceived community outlook on the current state of the game.

I know from personal experience that when Thor and HB were buffed that they completely dominated over the best 3*'s. Fury was borderline there but the cost of his skills make that debatable. I didn't personally use my Xavier automatically when he was buffed and I don't have a ready to use Kingpin to comment on.

simonsez

babinro wrote:

I know from personal experience that when Thor and HB were buffed that they completely dominated over the best 3*'s.

Right, but your status quo is saying UNbuffed 4*s are equivalent to buffed 3*s, which I have to agree with. This week, if LT was buffed and GT wasn't, I think everyone would be opting for LT; hell, even the week when both XF and BP were buffed, a lot of people thought BP was the better choice; had XF not been buffed, there would've been no question. And based on what I saw during the HB PvP, plenty of people have usable HBs, but as soon as he lost his buff, you sure don't see him a whole lot in PvP. People are choosing formations according to the buff schedule. Your "status quo" describes that accurately.

Colognoisseur

Xenoberyll wrote:

Colognoisseur wrote:

I disagree with the OP because I think the second choice is actually the Status Quo. My 4* are slightly better than buffed 3* ...

Buffed 3 Star Thor is worse than unbuffed 4 star Thor?
Buffed Cyclops is worse than unbuffed Xforce?
Buffed Iron Fist is worse than unbuffed Nick Fury?

I can't say i agree with you there. With mediocre 3stars it might be arguable but even there i think Gamora beats Elektra for example. The best 3stars are clear winners over unbuffed 4's imho.

Unbuffed Hulkbuster is better than buffed 3* Thor
Unbuffed ProfessorX is better than buffed Cyclops
Buffed Iron Fist is hard to beat. But honestly that is the only buffed 3* that would make me think twice.

It is a matter of opinion of course but I am using the buffed weekly 4*'s over the buffed 3*'s a lot.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

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.

I forgot to add the more important part of the problem: getting one cover isn't nearly impossible; completing a character is. Now that there are ten 4*s in the rotation, each character only comes up in PVP around once a month. Farming covers from PVP alone, if you can get a cover every time it comes up, is going to take you around a year to complete a character. Even if you start with six covers - which is generous - it'll take six months.

If the shield cooldown timing limits you to getting, at most, one 4* a week - which it will for the majority of people with any kind of work or school commitments - then you can only get, at most about five covers per character per year. And that's assuming the number doesn't expand. And it also assumes that the game doesn't offer covers you don't need on that one PVP you can get actually get that cover on during the week.

So I stand by what I originally said: it's nearly impossible to complete 4* characters now.

simonsez

Ben Grimm wrote:

So I stand by what I originally said: it's nearly impossible to complete 4* characters now.

And yet somehow, so many people are accomplishing the impossible...

Xenoberyll

Colognoisseur wrote:

Unbuffed Hulkbuster is better than buffed 3* Thor
Unbuffed ProfessorX is better than buffed Cyclops
Buffed Iron Fist is hard to beat. But honestly that is the only buffed 3* that would make me think twice.

It is a matter of opinion of course but I am using the buffed weekly 4*'s over the buffed 3*'s a lot.

I'll give you Hulkbuster, but Xavier isn't nearly as clear a winner imho.
Using the buffed 4 stars over buffed 3stars is viable for some but i think unbuffed 4stars aren't better except for a select few, all depending on who the buffed 3stars are. I voted for 2 because i think the gap should be a little clearer.

Heartburn

i think 4* match damage should be about double what it is at the moment, then we can go on to tweak abilities.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

Ben Grimm wrote:

So I stand by what I originally said: it's nearly impossible to complete 4* characters now.

And yet somehow, so many people are accomplishing the impossible...

I don't know what you're seeing, but I barely ever see Hulkbuster or Professor X, and never see any of the other post-4or ones. The whales are still buying their covers, but that's it.

MarvelMan

Ben Grimm wrote:

simonsez wrote:

Ben Grimm wrote:

So I stand by what I originally said: it's nearly impossible to complete 4* characters now.

And yet somehow, so many people are accomplishing the impossible...

I don't know what you're seeing, but I barely ever see Hulkbuster or Professor X, and never see any of the other post-4or ones. The whales are still buying their covers, but that's it.

I saw a decent number of IMHBs recently, either close to or fully covered. Not sure where all the covers came from but I dont think they were all the result of whales (or the game is a FAR better money maker than I thought). But I agree with the rest of what you are saying, here and above.

simonsez

Ben Grimm wrote:

I don't know what you're seeing, but I barely ever see Hulkbuster or Professor X, and never see any of the other post-4or ones. The whales are still buying their covers, but that's it.

I'm not a whale. I can't even tell you the last time I spend a penny on this game. Definitely not since the alliance roster slot refunds. And I have 21 HB/PX covers. And I've got alliance mates with 22 and 25, and they're not spending money either.

Buret0

simonsez wrote:

Ben Grimm wrote:

So I stand by what I originally said: it's nearly impossible to complete 4* characters now.

And yet somehow, so many people are accomplishing the impossible...

That seems to come down to alliances and people buying covers.

After the Hulkbuster Ultron event I saw a lot of people in PvP with completed Hulkbusters. That's either tremendous luck out of a 42 pack or someone bought about 20,000 HP worth of HB covers.

firethorne

I think this poll skips an answer that D3 skipped when they did the 4* nerfs. There obviously can be problems for seeing a game as fair or fun when one team will just instantly destroy the other. But, how often should a match like that take place?

My ideal solution is that, yes 4* are clearly better, but no they won't dominate, as they will rarely ever be put up against a clearly weaker team. It is a matchmaking issue, not a balance issue. View the *s as separate leagues you transition into. You don't have Ohio State go up against the New England Patriots.

PeterGibbons316

I think it should be just like the 3* to 2* comparison. You shouldn't really shouldn't be seeing much advantage in a 4* character until you have ~10 covers, and have them leveled to ~175+. I've got XFW and IMHB at 175 now and I am finding them both to be very good - better than all my 3*s, but I can also easily swap them with a maxed Luke Cage, LCap, Patch + Hulk/Loki and still be just as strong. I think this is about where they should be, so I guess my vote is "status quo".

The bigger issue I see is that a lot of the 4* characters are just BAD. Prof X and IMHB have been nice additions, but Elektra/Star Lord/Kingpin....these are just trophies in my roster. Doesn't really matter how "strong" the character is if the abilities render them useless.

Buret0

PeterGibbons316 wrote:

The bigger issue I see is that a lot of the 4* characters are just BAD. Prof X and IMHB have been nice additions, but Elektra/Star Lord/Kingpin....these are just trophies in my roster. Doesn't really matter how "strong" the character is if the abilities render them useless.

I'm sorry, but when you can use Gamora's Razor for 3 AP, Star Lord isn't useless. I've always thought that Star Lord should be reducing AP cost by a % instead of by a flat amount. It means that you see far more benefit by using low AP cost abilities (like getting 10 Gamora Red moves in for 30 AP instead of 6, getting 10 Daken Blue moves off for 30 AP, or getting 7 Luke Cage jabs in for 28 AP.) Yes, his other abilities aren't very good for a 4*, but that one move alone is a gamechanger with the right team. Build up your AP to the point where you can finish them all off in a single series of combos, then activate Everyone With Me.

It saves you 40% of your AP per use on the 5 AP moves, 33% on 6 AP moves, 29% on 7 AP moves, and 25% on 8 AP moves. You can even save 10% on a Ballistic Salvo.

Again, it all comes back to the fact that the AI can't play this game. That's why characters with great passives and powerful attacks are going to always be superior in PvP. The best characters are the ones in PvP are the ones who just use their abilities to launch attacks that the AI can't screw up.

Because we know that when we are playing Iron Fist and Luke Cage together that we save up our Black AP to 12, use Iron Fist's moves, then use Luke Cage's moves. The AI will just keep hitting single jabs and then matching their own jab tile. So even if you put Star Lord in for his sweet O potential with other 3*s with low AP cost abilities (the same kind you would pair with KK), he's useless on D and you are always going to save him for last.

Again, the problem with the functionality of the game comes down to how badly the AI plays this game.