An Anology of why 4*s in PVE is Flawed

Dauthi

In another thread, after some discussion, I reaffirmed that putting 4*s in PVE is flawed through an analogy of other games. I thought it might help other player realize what is happening in PVE.

In any other game, the high end players are the only ones who have access to high end items/equipment due to how the system of the game works, most often a "level" system. In these for example, a character shouldn't be able to kill a boss/monster that has this high level equipment, thus can't obtain it, on top of level restrictions on the equipment itself. MPQ's PVP system works similarly where players of similar rosters compete for covers typically appropriate to their roster, so the best rosters are able to compete for the best/plentiful covers while low level rosters have little to no chance. However in PVE the playing field is leveled out due to scaling to rosters.

In the analogy, let's say a low level player in another game is able to beat a boss/monster that drops equipment that a high level player uses. To make it similar to MPQ however, we have to make the equipment a finite amount, so if these low level players are taking it, high level players are losing it. This equipment will sit in the low level players inventory because they are unable to use it, due to level restrictions, and to make it similar to MPQ their inventory would have be small and limited. This equipment would be taking space for other equipment that could be useful/appropriate for their level.

MPQ similarly limits low rosters ability to use 4* covers, almost like a level restriction on equipment, because only those who can hit 1k every few days in PVP can sensibly build one. So when players who cannot obtain 1k in PVP are winning 4*s, they become virtually useless to them, aside from a distant future. They instead take space up for 3* covers and inhibit the progress of a 4* player.

In games with different levels of play, this is completely unacceptable and slows nearly everyone's progress. So why is it happening in PVE when they offer 4* characters?

SnowcaTT

Dauthi wrote:

MPQ similarly limits low rosters ability to use 4* covers, almost like a level restriction on equipment, because only those who can hit 1k every few days in PVP can sensibly build one. So when players who cannot obtain 1k in PVP are winning 4*s, they become virtually useless to them, aside from a distant future. They instead take space up for 3* covers and inhibit the progress of a 4* player.

In games with different levels of play, this is completely unacceptable and slows nearly everyone's progress. So why is it happening in PVE when they offer 4* characters?

Same argument for 2* as well though, right? they are just taking up space for 3*/4* in developed roster. They are like a level restriction as well: "here, use your 3*'s buffed....and this other character that will tag along, but never contribute."

2*/4* in PVE is a terrible idea, and one that only seems to say "Hey, players - you GOTTA catch 'em all!". I keep reading players say instead - "No thanks, we'll just pass on PVE."

halirin

A few 4* covers can actually be really helpful for a transitioning player. You don't need that many before suddenly you have a 4* leveled as high as one of your undercovered 3*s. Add in a weekly buff, and that "useless high end equipment" becomes one of your favorite tools. It's really only once you're deep into 3* land that 4* with 4 or 5 characters sit be completely unused (till you get more covers from pvp).

TheOncomingStorm

Dauthi wrote:

In another thread, after some discussion, I reaffirmed that putting 4*s in PVE is flawed through an analogy of other games. I thought it might help other player realize what is happening in PVE.

In any other game, the high end players are the only ones who have access to high end items/equipment due to how the system of the game works, most often a "level" system. In these for example, a character shouldn't be able to kill a boss/monster that has this high level equipment, thus can't obtain it, on top of level restrictions on the equipment itself. MPQ's PVP system works similarly where players of similar rosters compete for covers typically appropriate to their roster, so the best rosters are able to compete for the best/plentiful covers while low level rosters have little to no chance. However in PVE the playing field is leveled out due to scaling to rosters.

In the analogy, let's say a low level player in another game is able to beat a boss/monster that drops equipment that a high level player uses. To make it similar to MPQ however, we have to make the equipment a finite amount, so if these low level players are taking it, high level players are losing it. This equipment will sit in the low level players inventory because they are unable to use it, due to level restrictions, and to make it similar to MPQ their inventory would have be small and limited. This equipment would be taking space for other equipment that could be useful/appropriate for their level.

MPQ similarly limits low rosters ability to use 4* covers, almost like a level restriction on equipment, because only those who can hit 1k every few days in PVP can sensibly build one. So when players who cannot obtain 1k in PVP are winning 4*s, they become virtually useless to them, aside from a distant future. They instead take space up for 3* covers and inhibit the progress of a 4* player.

In games with different levels of play, this is completely unacceptable and slows nearly everyone's progress. So why is it happening in PVE when they offer 4* characters?

But if 4* are going to be essential in pve, then that argument is now flawed.

Moreover, I've said this for a long time now. If pvp is going to be where vets have an advantage, I have no problem with newer players having the advantage in pve.

Also, as many ppl have pointed out, this blown way out of proportion. If you look at the t10 ' s in pve, vets aren't getting locked out. In the end, pve is about how much you play and how optimally. Pvp is more about the best rosters winning.

Pylgrim

Sadly, the whole analogy is flawed because the existence of bracketing for people according to their roster level (which I just learned occurs in PVP as well.) "Low level players" get grouped together in their own brackets, so some of them will get these "high level rewards" no matter what, and not precisely because they are taking them out of the hands of the high level players.

Perhaps what has to go is roster level bracketing and PVE subs should be designed with that in mind? Now that we've gotten rid of community scaling maybe we could have fixed-level nodes of many different difficulties for everybody (i.e. a handful of <100 level nodes, a bunch of 100-200 level ones and a few ones reaching into the 300s), that way everybody would only be able to compete to the point their rosters allow and we'd get a clear gradient where the bottom 500 positions are low level players (getting rewards according to their level) and the top 10 are truly the players with the best rosters and best grinding.

However, thinking about this I realise that it could encourage a "pay-to-win" approach, as anyone willing to pay to get the best roster would immediately jump to the top. Not to mention that people not in the top wouldn't cherish the thought of not being ever able to topple the big dogs. I dunno, this issue is much more complex than people give credit to when they come up with their "great ideas" and wonder why these "idiot devs" don't get something so "simple".

Unknown

Dauthi wrote:

... So when players who cannot obtain 1k in PVP are winning 4*s, they become virtually useless to them, aside from a distant future...

... In games with different levels of play, this is completely unacceptable and slows nearly everyone's progress. So why is it happening in PVE when they offer 4* characters?

There are two straightforward answers to your question:

1. The first statement quoted above is flawed because even a poorly covered 4-star character can unlock essential nodes. This will greatly improve a player's placement in PvE, allowing them to earn additional rewards to enhance their roster.
2. As best as we know, roster slots accounted for over 25% of hero point expenditure in game, and their limited availability is a significant driver of revenue. Dangling new and exciting characters in front of players encourages them to purchase more roster slots. In the world of F2P games, this is a rather gentle nudge on players, and we should appreciate it being applied as a carrot rather than a stick.

fmftint

4* Pve fine. Know how many players get a new release 4* in PvP? One

With expansion to T100 winning 4* covers in pve, PvP needs be expanded as well

Dauthi

Pylgrim wrote:

Sadly, the whole analogy is flawed because the existence of bracketing for people according to their roster level (which I just learned occurs in PVP as well.) "Low level players" get grouped together in their own brackets, so some of them will get these "high level rewards" no matter what, and not precisely because they are taking them out of the hands of the high level players.

I saw someone jab you with that, and it isn't completely accurate. "Sharding" happens to a minimal extent, I personally have never had a problem with it. I run a 3* transition alliance and the guys there see me in their brackets occasionally. Who goes into what bracket is still mostly based on when you join and time slice.

Some people may confuse it with how the system was recently changed where 1*s can see 2*s, 2*s can see 1*s and 3*s, 3*s can see 4*s and 2*s, etc. This was to stop high end rosters from tanking and stomping low end rosters into the ground. It was actually a good fix to the system, and is especially apparent with point gains capped at 75 now.

As far as I know, brand new 1* players do get put into their own brackets guaranteed, but that time is very limited too.

Perhaps what has to go is roster level bracketing and PVE subs should be designed with that in mind? Now that we've gotten rid of community scaling maybe we could have fixed-level nodes of many different difficulties for everybody (i.e. a handful of <100 level nodes, a bunch of 100-200 level ones and a few ones reaching into the 300s), that way everybody would only be able to compete to the point their rosters allow and we'd get a clear gradient where the bottom 500 positions are low level players (getting rewards according to their level) and the top 10 are truly the players with the best rosters and best grinding.

I also think 0 scaling and fixed nodes would be a good approach.

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

But if 4* are going to be essential in pve, then that argument is now flawed.

It's not flawed at all, having 4*s as an essential gives vets another advantage that they deserve. Only 4* rosters should be getting three 4*s in an event. In the analogy a low level character has no chance to obtain high level equipment for everything work correctly. More odds stacked against new rosters should be welcome to ensure this is a reality in PVE.

Vynyv wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

... So when players who cannot obtain 1k in PVP are winning 4*s, they become virtually useless to them, aside from a distant future...

... In games with different levels of play, this is completely unacceptable and slows nearly everyone's progress. So why is it happening in PVE when they offer 4* characters?

There are two straightforward answers to your question:

1. The first statement quoted above is flawed because even a poorly covered 4-star character can unlock essential nodes. This will greatly improve a player's placement in PvE, allowing them to earn additional rewards to enhance their roster.

I guarantee you that 3 - 6 covers on any 4* is absolute garbage. You are better off with a mostly covered 3*. That 4* is doing nothing nothing more than acting as a straw man to scare away opponents with a high level but no power to actually back it. Anyone in 3* realm should look closely at the roster of anyone using underleveled 4*s, because they usually are very easy targets.

As an example lets take Hulkbuster, a current notorious 4*. At 3 covers his red does a pathetic 270 damage per ap, and that is at max level. That is really bad. As a comparison Torch's red at 5 covers and maxed does 428 damage/ap on his first use, and 565 damage/ap on his second.

[/*]
[*]As best as we know, roster slots accounted for over 25% of hero point expenditure in game, and their limited availability is a significant driver of revenue. Dangling new and exciting characters in front of players encourages them to purchase more roster slots. In the world of F2P games, this is a rather gentle nudge on players, and we should appreciate it being applied as a carrot rather than a stick.[/*]

Perhaps.

Bowgentle

fmftint wrote:

4* Pve fine. Know how many players get a new release 4* in PvP? One

With expansion to T100 winning 4* covers in pve, PvP needs be expanded as well

You mean like they just did, with adding another 4* cover at 1300?
In addition to the two at 1000 and for 1st place?

morph3us

Dauthi wrote:

Vynyv wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

... So when players who cannot obtain 1k in PVP are winning 4*s, they become virtually useless to them, aside from a distant future...

... In games with different levels of play, this is completely unacceptable and slows nearly everyone's progress. So why is it happening in PVE when they offer 4* characters?

There are two straightforward answers to your question:

1. The first statement quoted above is flawed because even a poorly covered 4-star character can unlock essential nodes. This will greatly improve a player's placement in PvE, allowing them to earn additional rewards to enhance their roster.

I guarantee you that 3 - 6 covers on any 4* is absolute garbage. You are better off with a mostly covered 3*. That 4* is doing nothing nothing more than acting as a straw man to scare away opponents with a high level but no power to actually back it. Anyone in 3* realm should look closely at the roster of anyone using underleveled 4*s, because they usually are very easy targets.

As an example lets take Hulkbuster, a current notorious 4*. At 3 covers his red does a pathetic 270 damage per ap, and that is at max level. That is really bad. As a comparison Torch's red at 5 covers and maxed does 428 damage/ap on his first use, and 565 damage/ap on his second.

I don't think that's what he's saying, Dauthi. He's simply saying that a 4* character allows a player to attempt an essential 4* node in PvE. He's not commenting on their actual effectiveness in PvP.

For what it's worth, I do recall picking up a 4* early on, and thinking, "Man, this character is a great tank in PvE!" That feeling lasted about a month, until my 94 2*s made him totally useless, after which he was sidelined for months, until I started to move post 3*. So, from that perspective, I think I would agree with you, in that he was useless "equipment" for that time period, particularly given that was a time frame in which there was no such thing as a 4* essential.

Having said that, we do need to look at the meta as it currently exists, and that includes 4* essential nodes, which form 33% of the high value, easily grindable nodes in a given Story event. If we put aside PvE events for 4* releases, if I'm a hypothetical transition player, playing for a 3* placement reward that I really, really want, I'm going to have a terrible time trying to place top ten without that 4* cover. Ergo, I need to have some way of picking up that 4* cover. That's not going to be PvP, so it has to be either through lucky token pulls, or the PvE release event. 4* essential nodes exist in PvE events awarding 3* characters too.

Unknown

Dauthi wrote:

So when players who cannot obtain 1k in PVP are winning 4*s, they become virtually useless to them, aside from a distant future. They instead take space up for 3* covers and inhibit the progress of a 4* player.

To make that "distant future" not so distant is exactly why I started collecting 4* even before I had maxed 2*. I guess you could call me a 2* to 4* transitioner, if there is such a thing. I wanted to get all the characters max covered as soon as possible, and it was easy to see that 4* are the rarest and will take the longest. From an optimization point of view, 4* is my highest priority target from the moment I learned how to play the game.

Sure, those 4*s took up space and did nothing for the most part, but months later, many of those 4* were becoming as good, if not better than, my fully covered 3*s. Because I started collecting 4* as a newbie, I'm now way ahead of everyone else in terms of 4* collection.

Prior to the PvP point change, I got all my 4* from top PvE rewards and token draws (season 10-packs etc). I maxed my XForce on Day 200. I'm on Day 265 now, and I have 30 max covered 3* at lv 120 (no maxed 3*), along with 104 x 4* covers between the 10 4* heroes (average 10 covers each, total 2 covers purchased with HP). With my limited Iso-8, it made sense for me to level up my 4* to level 200 to use in PvP instead of 3* to 166 since the cost is fairly similar.

Some of you might say it doesn't make sense to be able to skip 3* and go right to 4*, but for me, the most awesome thing is to mix and match heroes from different star tiers (MNMag + IM40 + Fury for example), and it wouldn't have been possible if 2* rosters were locked out from getting 4*s.

rawfsu

I think this game works differently in that you don't know when you'll get another opportunity to gain a certain character's cover. If you have the roster space, you better recruit that character while you have the chance. I'm on Day 447 and have NO maxed 4*. I've had IW and X-Force for at least a year, with IW at 7 covers and X-Force at 6. I JUST got Fury not too long ago and he stands at 4 covers, along with Devil Dino from Anniversary Week with 5 covers, Thoress at 2 covers, Hulkbuster and The Thing at one each. Most of my fours have benefited from the Daily Rewards (IW, X-Force, Fury, DD), not from pulls. I'm in a pretty tough spot for maxing those characters, so you better believe if I were a lower tier player, I wouldn't care how long that 4* hangs out, I'm taking them! Players can feel how they may about 4*'s in PVE, but 4*'s are hard enough to come by without these opportunities. Also, keep in mind, PVE always comes down whether or not you have the essential. I've skipped PVE for months, but as luck would have it, I had every single Essential character for The Hunt to win The Thing. Finished easily in the top 30. It just depends on the variety of your roster, but I appreciate Thing being available, whether I was able to get him or not, at least I had a shot!

Dauthi

morph3us wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Vynyv wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

... So when players who cannot obtain 1k in PVP are winning 4*s, they become virtually useless to them, aside from a distant future...

... In games with different levels of play, this is completely unacceptable and slows nearly everyone's progress. So why is it happening in PVE when they offer 4* characters?

There are two straightforward answers to your question:

1. The first statement quoted above is flawed because even a poorly covered 4-star character can unlock essential nodes. This will greatly improve a player's placement in PvE, allowing them to earn additional rewards to enhance their roster.

I guarantee you that 3 - 6 covers on any 4* is absolute garbage. You are better off with a mostly covered 3*. That 4* is doing nothing nothing more than acting as a straw man to scare away opponents with a high level but no power to actually back it. Anyone in 3* realm should look closely at the roster of anyone using underleveled 4*s, because they usually are very easy targets.

As an example lets take Hulkbuster, a current notorious 4*. At 3 covers his red does a pathetic 270 damage per ap, and that is at max level. That is really bad. As a comparison Torch's red at 5 covers and maxed does 428 damage/ap on his first use, and 565 damage/ap on his second.

I don't think that's what he's saying, Dauthi. He's simply saying that a 4* character allows a player to attempt an essential 4* node in PvE. He's not commenting on their actual effectiveness in PvP.

Oops, well either way I wanted to touch on 4*s being useless in basically every way.

rawfsu wrote:

I think this game works differently in that you don't know when you'll get another opportunity to gain a certain character's cover. If you have the roster space, you better recruit that character while you have the chance. I'm on Day 447 and have NO maxed 4*. I've had IW and X-Force for at least a year, with IW at 7 covers and X-Force at 6. I JUST got Fury not too long ago and he stands at 4 covers, along with Devil Dino from Anniversary Week with 5 covers, Thoress at 2 covers, Hulkbuster and The Thing at one each. Most of my fours have benefited from the Daily Rewards (IW, X-Force, Fury, DD), not from pulls. I'm in a pretty tough spot for maxing those characters, so you better believe if I were a lower tier player, I wouldn't care how long that 4* hangs out, I'm taking them! Players can feel how they may about 4*'s in PVE, but 4*'s are hard enough to come by without these opportunities. Also, keep in mind, PVE always comes down whether or not you have the essential. I've skipped PVE for months, but as luck would have it, I had every single Essential character for The Hunt to win The Thing. Finished easily in the top 30. It just depends on the variety of your roster, but I appreciate Thing being available, whether I was able to get him or not, at least I had a shot!

I always advise my 2* alliance to drop their 4*s if they need the room unless they are willing to pay. 3*s are great, they are consistently featured so you will need them, and are useful right now. Once you get to the point where you can hit 1k in pvp, the 4*s start flowing in nicely. When you compare that to the sacrifice some players make by making room for 4*s in their inventory, it seems it does more harm in the long run than it's worth.

TheOncomingStorm

Dauthi wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

Sadly, the whole analogy is flawed because the existence of bracketing for people according to their roster level (which I just learned occurs in PVP as well.) "Low level players" get grouped together in their own brackets, so some of them will get these "high level rewards" no matter what, and not precisely because they are taking them out of the hands of the high level players.

I saw someone jab you with that, and it isn't completely accurate. "Sharding" happens to a minimal extent, I personally have never had a problem with it. I run a 3* transition alliance and the guys there see me in their brackets occasionally. Who goes into what bracket is still mostly based on when you join and time slice.

Some people may confuse it with how the system was recently changed where 1*s can see 2*s, 2*s can see 1*s and 3*s, 3*s can see 4*s and 2*s, etc. This was to stop high end rosters from tanking and stomping low end rosters into the ground. It was actually a good fix to the system, and is especially apparent with point gains capped at 75 now.

As far as I know, brand new 1* players do get put into their own brackets guaranteed, but that time is very limited too.

Perhaps what has to go is roster level bracketing and PVE subs should be designed with that in mind? Now that we've gotten rid of community scaling maybe we could have fixed-level nodes of many different difficulties for everybody (i.e. a handful of <100 level nodes, a bunch of 100-200 level ones and a few ones reaching into the 300s), that way everybody would only be able to compete to the point their rosters allow and we'd get a clear gradient where the bottom 500 positions are low level players (getting rewards according to their level) and the top 10 are truly the players with the best rosters and best grinding.

I also think 0 scaling and fixed nodes would be a good approach.

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

But if 4* are going to be essential in pve, then that argument is now flawed.

It's not flawed at all, having 4*s as an essential gives vets another advantage that they deserve. Only 4* rosters should be getting three 4*s in an event. In the analogy a low level character has no chance to obtain high level equipment for everything work correctly. More odds stacked against new rosters should be welcome to ensure this is a reality in PVE.

Vynyv wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

... So when players who cannot obtain 1k in PVP are winning 4*s, they become virtually useless to them, aside from a distant future...

... In games with different levels of play, this is completely unacceptable and slows nearly everyone's progress. So why is it happening in PVE when they offer 4* characters?

There are two straightforward answers to your question:

1. The first statement quoted above is flawed because even a poorly covered 4-star character can unlock essential nodes. This will greatly improve a player's placement in PvE, allowing them to earn additional rewards to enhance their roster.

I guarantee you that 3 - 6 covers on any 4* is absolute garbage. You are better off with a mostly covered 3*. That 4* is doing nothing nothing more than acting as a straw man to scare away opponents with a high level but no power to actually back it. Anyone in 3* realm should look closely at the roster of anyone using underleveled 4*s, because they usually are very easy targets.

As an example lets take Hulkbuster, a current notorious 4*. At 3 covers his red does a pathetic 270 damage per ap, and that is at max level. That is really bad. As a comparison Torch's red at 5 covers and maxed does 428 damage/ap on his first use, and 565 damage/ap on his second.

[/*]
[*]As best as we know, roster slots accounted for over 25% of hero point expenditure in game, and their limited availability is a significant driver of revenue. Dangling new and exciting characters in front of players encourages them to purchase more roster slots. In the world of F2P games, this is a rather gentle nudge on players, and we should appreciate it being applied as a carrot rather than a stick.[/*]

Perhaps.

I can't help but think that if you were not a vet, you would not feel this way. Maybe you just need some newer players in your alliance, I'm not sure. However, all I know is if I had to start over tomorrow, I would not want to be locked out of getting 4*'s. If anything, I'd argue back when I pve ' d harder, I'd have to stop the last sub on several occasions so I wouldn't take a 4* I didn't need from another player.

Linkster79

A couple of questions for the OP.

What exactly defines a veteran player? I am currently on day 370(something) yet have no maxed 4* and only a few maxed 3*. Does time or roster make one a veteran player?

Why should any player be locked out of being able to do the essential 4* nodes in PvE by denying their chance to earn those essential characters in previous PvE's?

Because of scaling anybody can compete in PvE if they either have the time, dedication or characters yet without a good roster have little to no chance in PvP, should there not be a game mode where all can compete?

Why is PvE such an issue for you? It has already been stated that is indeed a not very efficient game mode for gathering rewards and building characters.

Arphaxad

Dauthi has demonstrated on other posts, and reaffirmed it here, that he is an elitist that doesn't want newer players to be able to challenge him. Sadly, you find players like him in any MMO. He thinks that seniority in game gives him special rights to new content before other players, and that noobs and lowbys should have to suffer for a period time before they can even have chance at getting higher level items.

Thankfully the devs of this game, and nearly every MMO I have played, understand that if new players do not have access to higher end items, they will leave the game. I am happy, as a player of only 5 months on MPQ, that the devs here have given me the opportunity to earn 4* cards. It has led me to spend money to buy roster slots and now I have 66 slots with several 3*s now nearing max level. If not for the challenge, and opportunity, to get 4*s I may not have stuck around.

Of course Dauthi would have been happier if I had given up because that would be one less person challenging him in the rankings. Now, I am not loaded enough to challenge him at the top of the rankings, but he knows that with 4*s available to me, it won't be long and he will have to actually work to earn new 4*s.

Sorry Dauthi, I enjoy this game, and like a lot of new players, we want to compete for high rankings. It won't take us long thanks to the devs. See you in top 10 real soon

jackstar0

Entitlement as game philosophy.

Dauthi

Arphaxad wrote:

Dauthi has demonstrated on other posts, and reaffirmed it here, that he is an elitist that doesn't want newer players to be able to challenge him. Sadly, you find players like him in any MMO. He thinks that seniority in game gives him special rights to new content before other players, and that noobs and lowbys should have to suffer for a period time before they can even have chance at getting higher level items.

Go play WoW and challenge a level 70 player as a level 10 to a duel, who do you think will win? Is it because they are elite? This concept is nearly universal in MMO (massive multiplayer online) games.

Thankfully the devs of this game, and nearly every MMO I have played, understand that if new players do not have access to higher end items, they will leave the game. I am happy, as a player of only 5 months on MPQ, that the devs here have given me the opportunity to earn 4* cards. It has led me to spend money to buy roster slots and now I have 66 slots with several 3*s now nearing max level. If not for the challenge, and opportunity, to get 4*s I may not have stuck around.

Of course Dauthi would have been happier if I had given up because that would be one less person challenging him in the rankings. Now, I am not loaded enough to challenge him at the top of the rankings, but he knows that with 4*s available to me, it won't be long and he will have to actually work to earn new 4*s.

Sorry Dauthi, I enjoy this game, and like a lot of new players, we want to compete for high rankings. It won't take us long thanks to the devs. See you in top 10 real soon

You must have played very little MMOs, because my first question will never stand up under your terms. I already explained how those 4* covers are useless to budding players. If you want to meet me in the top ranks, spend lots of money, or dump those and get 3*s that will actually help your growth. I say this as a leader of a 2* alliance who wants new players to get better in the game.

At this point I really wish I could gather all those forum posts with high tier players complaining about how much 4*s suck now... It's not completely true, but gathering 3*s is the strategy for moving ahead considering they are always featured and in some cases trump all 4*s when buffed.

puppychow

Vynyv wrote:

[*]As best as we know, roster slots accounted for over 25% of hero point expenditure in game, and their limited availability is a significant driver of revenue. Dangling new and exciting characters in front of players encourages them to purchase more roster slots. In the world of F2P games, this is a rather gentle nudge on players, and we should appreciate it being applied as a carrot rather than a stick.[/list]

This is an excellent point that I want to emphasize. For me personally, slot purchases is probably 1/3 to 40% of my in-game expenditures (around $1,600 for about 15 months of daily play). I currently have 85 slots, and only the last 2 were purchased at the ceiling price of 1,000 hp rather than the previously ever increasing price of 1,050 hp each.

And yes, I do see slot purchasing as a necessary carrot because having 85 bodies in my roster means that I can throw healthy characters in events like simulator pve and spend minimally on health packs. For heroic events, my ability to unlock all essentials allowed me to be in the hunt for top 10 placement in pretty much every event I'm interested in.

In the long run, having more slots is actually a money saving tool. Let's use the recent The Hunt event debuting The Thing cover as an example. I've read that Ben Grimm spent like 2,000 hp on boosts and heal packs for his top placement in his bracket. I personally spent 50 hp on 1 health pack for the ENTIRE EVENT, placed top 10, and got all three Thing colors. Factoring in my top 10 placement in every sub and getting hp back, i actually GAINED hp for this event.

In the just ended Venom Heroic event, I spent last than 100 hp on color boosts for the entire event, placed 2nd overall and got the Wilson Fisk cover. I placed at least top 50 per sub, meaning that again I actually GAINED hp for that event, plus a **** cover worth 2.5k hp.

The point I'm making is that purchasing slots is the best way to save money in the long run on hp, grow your roster, get 3/4* covers.

Arphaxad

Dauthi wrote:

Go play WoW and challenge a level 70 player as a level 10 to a duel, who do you think will win? Is it because they are elite? This concept is nearly universal in MMO (massive multiplayer online) games.

You're talking PvP, I'm talking PvE. To use WoW as an example, you would want to take your lv70 into a starter zone, kill mobs, who then scale too high for new players to beat. You would then sit back and say "they should be happy to login, eventually they will get enough xp to level up and compete."

In story mode, players are supposed to play against NPCs, not other players. We are ranked against each other based on how we play against those NPCs, but the NPCs should not get harder based on how much stronger other players are. (and the devs know this, hence the death of community scaling.)

Dauthi wrote:

I already explained how those 4* covers are useless to budding players. If you want to meet me in the top ranks, spend lots of money, or dump those and get 3*s that will actually help your growth. I say this as a leader of a 2* alliance who wants new players to get better in the game.

At this point I really wish I could gather all those forum posts with high tier players complaining about how much 4*s suck now... It's not completely true, but gathering 3*s is the strategy for moving ahead considering they are always featured and in some cases trump all 4*s when buffed.

How are 4*s useless when there are nodes that require them? Your argument fails on many levels.

Dauthi

Arphaxad wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Go play WoW and challenge a level 70 player as a level 10 to a duel, who do you think will win? Is it because they are elite? This concept is nearly universal in MMO (massive multiplayer online) games.

You're talking PvP, I'm talking PvE. To use WoW as an example, you would want to take your lv70 into a starter zone, kill mobs, who then scale too high for new players to beat. You would then sit back and say "they should be happy to login, eventually they will get enough xp to level up and compete."

In story mode, players are supposed to play against NPCs, not other players. We are ranked against each other based on how we play against those NPCs, but the NPCs should not get harder based on how much stronger other players are. (and the devs know this, hence the death of community scaling.)

A better comparison would be how the world is broken into level appropriate areas, so it would be foolish for a low level to go to a high level area. If they complete the low level area they get prizes according to their level.

MPQ works the same, where it has easy/medium/hard nodes. The problem is the nodes scale, so now the low level characters can come and fight in the high level areas taking those prizes if they wish. We see this in MPQ when the low level character probably needs the alternate 3* prize being offered, but the high level roster doesn't.

Dauthi wrote:

I already explained how those 4* covers are useless to budding players. If you want to meet me in the top ranks, spend lots of money, or dump those and get 3*s that will actually help your growth. I say this as a leader of a 2* alliance who wants new players to get better in the game.

At this point I really wish I could gather all those forum posts with high tier players complaining about how much 4*s suck now... It's not completely true, but gathering 3*s is the strategy for moving ahead considering they are always featured and in some cases trump all 4*s when buffed.

How are 4*s useless when there are nodes that require them? Your argument fails on many levels.

Non-new character PVEs are so easy, you do not need that one essential. Veterans mostly avoid these, so they should be new player's targets. So my argument is that they require them, but you do not need them unless you plan to compete for more 4*s. Quite the cycle.

Like I stated earlier, a 4* advantage should be given to Veterans so they can obtain the 3*s/4*s they need to continue to progress, because progress is really slow at the top.

Linkster79 wrote:

A couple of questions for the OP.

What exactly defines a veteran player? I am currently on day 370(something) yet have no maxed 4* and only a few maxed 3*. Does time or roster make one a veteran player?

Why should any player be locked out of being able to do the essential 4* nodes in PvE by denying their chance to earn those essential characters in previous PvE's?

Because of scaling anybody can compete in PvE if they either have the time, dedication or characters yet without a good roster have little to no chance in PvP, should there not be a game mode where all can compete?

Why is PvE such an issue for you? It has already been stated that is indeed a not very efficient game mode for gathering rewards and building characters.

Anyone who can hit 1k in PVP so they can build the 4*s are the ones who should be getting them for the system to work efficiently.

Why should level 10 characters in WoW be unable to compete in level 70 areas? Should level 70s have an edge over them?

All should be able to compete, for roster appropriate prizes.

Considering how long it takes to gather 4*s, two to three 4*s to kick off that progress is huge. That can cut your time to gather that character by 2-3 months.