New RNG Model for Covers

Dankaminari

I'm wondering why MPQ doesn't deploy the RNG model used in the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer RNG. There, you had a ton of various items, gear, and consumables that you could pull from varying levels of packs (similar to tokens here). Once you leveled up an item, you could never pull that item again. This slowly (I repeat, this was a painfully slow process) ensured that your gear continued to develop.


Why not employ that system here? Simply replace all cover rewards with tokens and repurpose the token such that only "new" covers can be pulled. There is absolutely no reasons why anyone with a legendary token should pull a cover for a 4* (or 5*) cover for which that color is already maxed. It's insulting to sell those covers for 1k ISO (for reference, the 1500 ISO reward in the vault is considered a 2* reward).

Thoughts?

Mod Edit: Moved to suggestions

Unknown

Because with many players having dupe characters, that system wouldn't be put in place. Also, it causes you to work harder or spend more if you keep getting the same covers. That way you increase your pulls to get other characters with the risk of getting the same.


If that kind of RNG was here, there'd be a 100+ maxed surfers by now.

Unknown

My three OBW, 2 Hoods, MBW, IM40s are glad this system isn't in place.

However, my 6+ red but still only 5/2/5 Carnage would like to have a word about instituting such a policy, especially every time my fully covered baglady gets another one.

So there's pros and cons to both systems, but I don't really mind the way it is currently.

cletus1985

Dankaminari wrote:

It's insulting to sell those covers for 1k ISO (for reference, the 1500 ISO reward in the vault is considered a 2* reward).

Thoughts?

I'm 100% behind you on this portion of your post. The ISO sell price is ridiculous for what the buy price/effort to earn them is set at. 1 & 2*'s are given out like candy, so I can't complain with their ISO value, but 3 & especially 4*'s need a big bump in value.

I will add that there should be some limits set on recurring colors for a given character (3 of a certain character color and it's taken out of rotation until you get another color, something along those lines)

Dankaminari

florida92 wrote:

Because with many players having dupe characters, that system wouldn't be put in place. Also, it causes you to work harder or spend more if you keep getting the same covers. That way you increase your pulls to get other characters with the risk of getting the same.


If that kind of RNG was here, there'd be a 100+ maxed surfers by now.

While I think these are fine points, I question whether the game should even be structured to allow for duplicate characters. Of course it allows D3 to sell more roster slots so there is no incentive to get rid of it.

On your point about 100+ maxed surfers: I strongly believe that the whales and others who support this game should get some advantage for doing so. Nobody, even them, should have to get an endless amount of useless covers. That said, it is not possible to fully cover most of the characters in the game (13/15 powers). So there will always be 3* and 4* covers in the rotation to dilute the token odds and ensure max rosters aren't simply pulling 5* covers. I don't think that would necessarily be a great fix but it's better than what we have.

The 4* reward in the vault is 10,000 ISO. I think 4* covers should be sold for that price. 5000 ISO for 3* covers. It would help improve the current ISO grind tremendously.

TLCstormz

If the collectors in the upper echelons (which is a small percentage OF a small percentage) have to "go without" for the other 95% of the player base to not have their 63rd Moonstone Red or 17th Mystique Pink pulled...........I think they'll be alright.

I'd vote for yes, simply because this kind system is certainly better than what we have now.

Unknown

Dankaminari wrote:

florida92 wrote:

Because with many players having dupe characters, that system wouldn't be put in place. Also, it causes you to work harder or spend more if you keep getting the same covers. That way you increase your pulls to get other characters with the risk of getting the same.


If that kind of RNG was here, there'd be a 100+ maxed surfers by now.

While I think these are fine points, I question whether the game should even be structured to allow for duplicate characters. Of course it allows D3 to sell more roster slots so there is no incentive to get rid of it.

On your point about 100+ maxed surfers: I strongly believe that the whales and others who support this game should get some advantage for doing so. Nobody, even them, should have to get an endless amount of useless covers. That said, it is not possible to fully cover most of the characters in the game (13/15 powers). So there will always be 3* and 4* covers in the rotation to dilute the token odds and ensure max rosters aren't simply pulling 5* covers. I don't think that would necessarily be a great fix but it's better than what we have.

The 4* reward in the vault is 10,000 ISO. I think 4* covers should be sold for that price. 5000 ISO for 3* covers. It would help improve the current ISO grind tremendously.

I would love to have an advantage as I have put a good bit into the game, however this way slots are sold and we get ISO as the "trade-off.'

I will completely agree that the ISO to star to HP conversion needs to be seriously re-evaluated. A 1000 HP won't get most characters up a single level at a certain point. For example I need 32,004 ISO to get Psylocke from 123-140. To go to 124, it costs 1441 ISO. Selling a single **** cover won't raise this *** character 1 level.

I guess the concern is too much ISO, the characters will level up too fast and I disagree with this. A good bit of players follow the cap method for their heroes to prevent PVE scaling issues. This would cause them to level up more characters to get to this cap meaning they'd have to buy more slots and money would be made that way.

I know people say that this is done from preventing the game from going to quickly, but at the rate we're headed you can't go too fast.

GurlBYE

TLCstormz wrote:

If the collectors in the upper echelons (which is a small percentage OF a small percentage) have to "go without" for the other 95% of the player base to not have their 63rd Moonstone Red or 17th Mystique Pink pulled...........I think they'll be alright.

I'd vote for yes, simply because this kind system is certainly better than what we have now.

Couldn't have said it better myself, especially since the double, triple character situation is in an effort to skip around the health packs limiting play or costing HP.


___
Also in for the iso finally stepping up to plate.
Another 4 star is being introduced and people are talking about too fast, in any respect.
With each tier after 2 needing 6 months + to a year as is it's enough to turn away all but the most dedicated as is.

The last thing this game is in danger of is going too fast in any regard.

OneLastGambit

The only thing I agree with is the sell price of 4* covers, 1000 iso is an insult. It should, as previously mentioned, match up with the vault. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this before since it's quite a glaring issue.

Dankaminari

I'm actually surprised that most people seem to want duplicate covers. I'm not saying my idea is the best but there has to be something better than getting the same **** over and over.

Unknown

Selectable prizes!

Zen808

TLCstormz wrote:

If the collectors in the upper echelons (which is a small percentage OF a small percentage) have to "go without" for the other 95% of the player base to not have their 63rd Moonstone Red or 17th Mystique Pink pulled...........I think they'll be alright.

I'd vote for yes, simply because this kind system is certainly better than what we have now.

You do realize you'll still pull 63 Moonstones covers, the only difference being that it will all be in the "3" color of your 3/5/5 setup? Or better yet, you'll get them split between 2 colors if you chose to go 4/4/5.

It's actually a pretty good idea, because it will make re-specs easier without completely disrupting the economy.