4* DDQ, a debate

optimus2861

danae wrote:

The 3* DDQ is great for those players who are unwilling to do the effort or do not have the time to progress using PVE or PVP events.

That is seriously insulting.

Do you remember the state of the game when DDQ was introduced? We had characters vaulted from tokens. The 3* pool was expanding at a rapid rate. In the entire first ~4 months I played the game, as the most egregious example, Black Panther was NEVER made available in any PVE or PVP event. The only way to earn him was via a lucky taco draw from DDQ so you could play his node and win a second cover.

"Unwilling to do the effort?" No effort was even POSSIBLE for many characters back in those days.

Even now, how many times has Iron Fist been a PVE prize? Or Panther? Or Cage? Or even an oldie like Punisher? There are 40 3* characters to cycle through. That is a long freaking time to wait for your desired character to come up in a PVE or PVP - and now, more often than not in PVE, they only award one cover of that character for placement, since they're so busy getting whales to chase 4* covers. Then one cover as progression in the next event, and then nothing for many more weeks or even months. And fat chance chasing high PVP placement these days to try & win multiple covers that way; the 4* crowd has a pretty solid lock on T25 now.

"Unwilling to do the effort?" Bah.

simonsez

herm1978 wrote:

How do you figure that? I have to do one clear between 6PM and bed. One before work. And one after work, before 6PM. Repeat. How is that not on a schedule?

All you have to do is hit each node 3 times over the course of 24 hours. Doesn't matter when. Don't tell me that having to play each day, at any time at all over a 3 day event constitutes keeping a "schedule".

djpt05

danae wrote:

I'm wondering, though, if these players don't play PVE/PVP competitively to try and advance their rosters, then what are they trying to achieve by progressing to 4*s/5*s? Just for collecting purposes?

Yes I feel like playing 2 hours a day outside of a competitive alliance and Line chatting should still eventually yield some positive transition over time and not just stick me forever with my already maxed 3*s. By no means should my rate of growth be anywhere near those who grind more, are in competitive alilances and strategize with each other. But my growth should not be flat-lined either.

I don't feel like legendary tokens are the answer. I don't deserve a 5* draw for DDQ. However DDQ was a logical option for casual players to slowly build a 3* roster. I don't understand the pushback for allowing a DDQ option to slowly build a 4* roster as well.

"But that's not how it was when I went through!". Cool. I was around for Big Bad Rag feeding green to OSBW. Things constantly change for a variety of reasons it doesn't mean they are all bad changes. If Galactus destroyed you for 3 days I'm sure you aren't upset with the changes that are being made (bad example maybe??)

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

herm1978 wrote:

How do you figure that? I have to do one clear between 6PM and bed. One before work. And one after work, before 6PM. Repeat. How is that not on a schedule?

All you have to do is hit each node 3 times over the course of 24 hours. Doesn't matter when. Don't tell me that having to play each day, at any time at all over a 3 day event constitutes keeping a "schedule".

So long as said hits are 8 hours apart, of course.

Hence, before work, after work, before bed.

Also get some extra clears before the node expires, and get a clear in asap for the new node.

Cause you want to do it well and stuff.

Der_Lex

colwag wrote:

simonsez wrote:

herm1978 wrote:

How do you figure that? I have to do one clear between 6PM and bed. One before work. And one after work, before 6PM. Repeat. How is that not on a schedule?

All you have to do is hit each node 3 times over the course of 24 hours. Doesn't matter when. Don't tell me that having to play each day, at any time at all over a 3 day event constitutes keeping a "schedule".

So long as said hits are 8 hours apart, of course.

Hence, before work, after work, before bed.

Also get some extra clears before the node expires, and get a clear in asap for the new node.

Cause you want to do it well and stuff.

Again, only if you want to go for placement. You have a lot more freedom in when you play when you're just going for the Legendary token, as per my post above.

BlackSheep101

Der_Lex wrote:

Again, only if you want to go for placement. You have a lot more freedom in when you play when you're just going for the Legendary token, as per my post above.

And if you're going for placement you'll need to do a lot more grinding at the end of each sub.

It depends on how many essentials I have in an event, but I don't do anything close to optimal clears and I still get the legendary in the last sub. If I don't want the 3* cover offered for top 150 placement, I take the rest of the event off. I think the only event I messed up was Mystique's because of that annoying 48 hour sub.

simonsez

colwag wrote:

So long as said hits are 8 hours apart, of course.

No, NOT of course. Just read what I said and/or do some math. You can do three clears WHENEVER and get the token.

XandorXerxes

Dauthi wrote:

You are right, unfinished 3* rosters should avoid 5*s, which is even more reason they should get less legendary tokens. It's a wasted roster slot any way you look at it. 4*s will trickle in lightly for standard heroic type tokens, but mostly fill in their 3* roster, which is what they need more anyways.

Based on your comments, I'm not sure what stage you're at. If you had every 3* fully rostered and leveled, but didn't have 3-4 4*s in the 220+ range, I'd tell you not to open legendary tokens. PvE players? Hosed. As far as heroic tokens, are you serious? I earned 4 10-packs a couple seasons ago from season placement and reward. Those 40 tokens gave me exactly 0 4* covers. I calculated the odds of that, and you know what? There's a 1 in 6 chance, even using 10-pack odds, to not pull a 4* in 4 10-packs. That's crazy. I'm almost 500 days myself, and I've found 1 XFW cover from tokens. One - despite starting when there were only two 4*s.

With how low the 5* drop rate is and how fast they are creating 5*s, I don't think this is a huge issue. I haven't even gotten a 5* yet, and I am sure I am not the only one. I wouldn't be surprised if I still don't have one by the time another 5* is released. Your only concern should be whales, and they are going to whale it up regardless of how fast 5*s come in.

I would like to also point out new players either don't know, or forget, that older players had a very hard time collecting 3*s. Collecting 3*s now is a joke in comparison. A lot of our time was consumed by doing that, so things like this even out new player vs older player progress.

I wasn't around for the first few months of the game, but getting 3*s was not particularly hard for me. T100 placement in PvP wasn't unreasonable, covers had a decent chance of dropping from tokens (significantly higher than 4*s are now). It was a pain to get someone properly covered, but getting someone fully leveled was extremely do-able. You definitely didn't have to wait 200 days just to get 1 character fully covered.

Before 4* DDQs progress was pretty terrible for 4* players. Even now it isn't much better, but for day 200 players to think they should progress faster than day 600, is a bit of a slap in the face. Everyone is progressing at roughly the same rate, thanks to the luck based token system D3 has put forward.

The 3* players who are at day 400-500 think so too, but guess what? If they can't hit the 1K PvP mark (lack of time, skill, luck, whatever reason), then 2* rosters have an easier time making the 4* transition than they do via PvE. I'm not a day 200 player asking for faster progress than a day 600 player, though as I recall when I mentioned that this scenario might arise I was told by a big-name poster that "if the 200 day player plays more than the 600 day player, they should progress faster." So, make up your minds!

So why do you think you should skip the 3* realm? You have to get your 3* roster built up to earn 4*s so you can move on to that roster level. Makes logical sense.

I specifically chose 20 because every number for maxed 3* characters needed before starting the transition that I've seen thrown out by 4* people has been below it. I also chose 20 to point out how rarely boosts will work out for those people. Again, this just goes back to the lack of consistency in the numbers being thrown out in the forums.

I don't think 1300 progression reward is fair to throw in, it takes a lot of effort and hp, and even then there is a lot of luck involved because there is so little points at the top.

Oh, the irony. Ice was posting pictures of people making 2000 points or more - why don't you just watch the leaderboard for when those people hop, queue them up, and hop against them at odd hours when no one else is playing? You'll earn plenty of points, making 1300 shouldn't be too hard for you at all with a 4* roster.

I hope that sounded as awful to you as the same advice sounds to a 3* player.

From what I have read, it seems more like you want to skip the 3* progression. If you have your 3*s maxed and at 166, and you still have no completed 4*s, then you would have a better point. I just don't think that is happening. The more 3*s you have (especially strong ones) the easier it is to hit 1k, allowing 4*s start rolling in faster and faster like a boulder gaining momentum.

I would like to note, one thing the 4* DDQs have done is make leveling/collecting all 4*s important, even if they are bad. It makes it a lot more fulfilling to have characters like Elektra or IW. Making 4* DDQs easier or scaled would stop this.

I'm generalizing. I have the "big name" 3*s maxed, save a couple. I've got about 5-6 4*s with 5 covers or more. I've made 1K points in PvPs. That doesn't mean that I can't see how annoying and awful it can be to those who don't or can't. I haven't opened a single legendary token I've earned, because I'm scared I'll get a 5* cover and make PvP even more annoying for me. PvEs are so boring it's not funny, but I guess I need to do them in order to keep up with the 2* teams who can start progressing to 4*.

Even if I didn't have any 4*s, even if I didn't have any 3*s, my points wouldn't be any more or less accurate. We're not talking about character balance. Judging anyone's comments here on their roster is just being dismissive and biased without actually responding to them.

BlackSheep101

I've opened maybe a dozen legendary tokens, got OML yellow, use him here and there in PVE to save healthpacks. I haven't noticed any change in difficulty in PVE nor PVP. Telling someone who's maxed all the 3* characters not to open legendary tokens is ludicrous. The only reason I'd tell someone in that position to wait is if they really want an upcoming character that isn't available from tokens yet or if they don't think they'll be able to buy or clear a roster slot for someone new.

MaxxPowerz

I feel like some of the more seasoned players might be overlooking how hard it is just to get a decent team of 4* characters going now that they are constantly being expanded. When there was a smaller pool of 4* characters this wasn't such a big deal. Sure, 4* characters may be rare rewards(as they should) but when you got one back in the day it was most likely a character you already had a few covers with.

The 4* pool is much larger now and growing by the month. I have 9 or 10 of these characters on my roster but none of them have anymore than 2 or 3 covers. They just take up roster space and none of them will be useful anytime in the foreseeable future.

Let's face it, the DDQ only caters to those who already have a strong 4* roster. Grinding for legendary tokens in PVE is well...a grind. It's only worth doing for shorter events. It would be nice if we had a few more opportunities to earn legendary tokens, maybe with season progression rewards.

I don't expect to make the 4* transition over night and I enjoy the challenge, but if the developers intend on adding these characters at their current pace I don't think it is out of the question to ask for more and better opportunities to earn them. I'm still a bit early in my MPQ career, but it would be nice to build at least one 4* character I could get some use out of.

OzarkBoatswain

Right now, 4* DDQ nodes can be beaten with around 6 covers on the character and level max. I'd like them to be slightly easier -- maybe with 4 or 5 covers? In any case, I appreciate the nodes.

Dauthi

XandorXerxes wrote:

As far as heroic tokens, are you serious? I earned 4 10-packs a couple seasons ago from season placement and reward. Those 40 tokens gave me exactly 0 4* covers. I calculated the odds of that, and you know what? There's a 1 in 6 chance, even using 10-pack odds, to not pull a 4* in 4 10-packs. That's crazy. I'm almost 500 days myself, and I've found 1 XFW cover from tokens. One - despite starting when there were only two 4*s.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't help much, I could respond by saying I consistently get 4*s out of my tokens weekly or at least biweekly. I'd rather see your math, though even 1/6 is pretty unlucky.

With how low the 5* drop rate is and how fast they are creating 5*s, I don't think this is a huge issue. I haven't even gotten a 5* yet, and I am sure I am not the only one. I wouldn't be surprised if I still don't have one by the time another 5* is released. Your only concern should be whales, and they are going to whale it up regardless of how fast 5*s come in.

I would like to also point out new players either don't know, or forget, that older players had a very hard time collecting 3*s. Collecting 3*s now is a joke in comparison. A lot of our time was consumed by doing that, so things like this even out new player vs older player progress.

I wasn't around for the first few months of the game, but getting 3*s was not particularly hard for me. T100 placement in PvP wasn't unreasonable, covers had a decent chance of dropping from tokens (significantly higher than 4*s are now). It was a pain to get someone properly covered, but getting someone fully leveled was extremely do-able. You definitely didn't have to wait 200 days just to get 1 character fully covered.

Are you contending that getting 3*s today isn't much easier? You don't even need 3*s maxed to make great progress maxing out your 3*s like you used to. Today has better 3* odds, better 3* rewards in events, 3* DDQs and best of all, shields. Progress is insane compared to what it used to be, and that is because they shifted what 3*s used to be to what 4*s are currently.

Before 4* DDQs progress was pretty terrible for 4* players. Even now it isn't much better, but for day 200 players to think they should progress faster than day 600, is a bit of a slap in the face. Everyone is progressing at roughly the same rate, thanks to the luck based token system D3 has put forward.

I'm not a day 200 player asking for faster progress than a day 600 player, though as I recall when I mentioned that this scenario might arise I was told by a big-name poster that "if the 200 day player plays more than the 600 day player, they should progress faster." So, make up your minds!

Anyone who plays more than another should progress faster, and I feel that is what we currently have. To allow easier access to 4*s for low end rosters would disrupt this.

So why do you think you should skip the 3* realm? You have to get your 3* roster built up to earn 4*s so you can move on to that roster level. Makes logical sense.

I specifically chose 20 because every number for maxed 3* characters needed before starting the transition that I've seen thrown out by 4* people has been below it. I also chose 20 to point out how rarely boosts will work out for those people. Again, this just goes back to the lack of consistency in the numbers being thrown out in the forums.

I disagree. If you have at least 2 top tier characters (lets say Cyclops and Iron Fist) maxed for that event, your chances go up drastically. If you have just 3 166s boosted for the event your chances go up even higher in most cases. I watch players in both my alliances do it every day. Sometimes I get the 1k mark easy myself with just boosted 3*s. The more your roster is filled out the better your chances. I dont understand wanting better progress before you are finished with at least most of the 3*s. That is wanting to skip the 3* progression. I again ask why anyone should be able to do that.

I don't think 1300 progression reward is fair to throw in, it takes a lot of effort and hp, and even then there is a lot of luck involved because there is so little points at the top.

Oh, the irony. Ice was posting pictures of people making 2000 points or more - why don't you just watch the leaderboard for when those people hop, queue them up, and hop against them at odd hours when no one else is playing? You'll earn plenty of points, making 1300 shouldn't be too hard for you at all with a 4* roster.

I hope that sounded as awful to you as the same advice sounds to a 3* player.

Think about what you are asking. A jump takes around 5-10 minutes and you hope to catch a few people (if any in some cases) on your leaderboard by watching it. That sounds reasonable?

It sounds like you don't understand how it works exactly. There are multiple factors that can fumble your rise to 1300 (again I see this constantly in my alliances). One is time slices, you get into a dry one and your chances get much smaller. Another is the prize being offered at 1k, as more players will play for a new 4* rather than an old, saturating the points towards the top. It also helps to play at specific times (usually the 3 hour/8 hour junctions) to hopefully catch someone jumping and who also doesn't get attacked so you can get the full point total. You also can't fail your jump or stall it or you lose points instead.

Do you think all that sounds worth it for a legendary token that yields, for example, a 50% chance of getting something you need? What if you spend 400 hp and 5k iso skipping to get an Elektra or IW that you don't need? This compares to a 3* hitting 1k who is guaranteed a specific 4*?

Lee T

Dauthi wrote:

From what I have read, it seems more like you want to skip the 3* progression. If you have your 3*s maxed and at 166, and you still have no completed 4*s, then you would have a better point. I just don't think that is happening. The more 3*s you have (especially strong ones) the easier it is to hit 1k, allowing 4*s start rolling in faster and faster like a boulder gaining momentum.

I would like to note, one thing the 4* DDQs have done is make leveling/collecting all 4*s important, even if they are bad. It makes it a lot more fulfilling to have characters like Elektra or IW. Making 4* DDQs easier or scaled would stop this.

I'm not this guy but I know where he's coming from. Feel free to check my roster below. Note that I have enough ISO to max out 8 of my 140 guys. I'm currently waiting for some key characters to be fully covered before making the jump.

You can hardly say that I "skipped" the 3* phase. I do PVE, I do get the legendary easily and I have no interest whatsoever in playing PVP competitively, the shield hopscotch dance is simply not for me and my schedule. PVE is already too much time but at least it's guaranted reward/effort.

Now you can check my 4* roster, I need 160 covers to finish the ones I have and 52 to covers the one I don't have.

I make about 6 legendary tokens a month plus the odd lucky heroic, that would be around three years to have something looking like my current 3* roster. Oops, that's with lucky not overlapping draws, so add a substantial number of months to that, say four years. Now how many 4* characters will be added in the meantime I wonder. Probably enough to make it 40, that's 20x13 covers added to the total... And let's not mention the 5* .

I think having a 4* DDQ equivalent to the 3* DDQ would cut that time in half (another six covers a month) and I would probably have a good set of fully covered 4* in two/three years. Not much to write home about since I'm already one year in, I doubt that would qualify as "skipping" anything.

They can find a way to make a tough game yet possible fight for people with maxed 3* (there's not much strategy involved if they made it possible for a one/two covered 4*). I think that people who consider the 3* DDQ as a gimme do not remember (or never had to) go through it with a 2* team. I managed to win every game but a handfull, but those were the toughest nerve wracking games I've played.

Rereading my post I'm wondering why I even bother playing a game with such low prospect at progression... Let's be honest I'm only waiting to see what is that elusive "new way to get 4* beside DDQ" promessed a while ago.

Dauthi

Lee T wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

From what I have read, it seems more like you want to skip the 3* progression. If you have your 3*s maxed and at 166, and you still have no completed 4*s, then you would have a better point. I just don't think that is happening. The more 3*s you have (especially strong ones) the easier it is to hit 1k, allowing 4*s start rolling in faster and faster like a boulder gaining momentum.

I'm not this guy but I know where he's coming from. Feel free to check my roster below. Note that I have enough ISO to max out 8 of my 140 guys. I'm currently waiting for some key characters to be fully covered before making the jump.

You can hardly say that I "skipped" the 3* phase. I do PVE, I do get the legendary easily and I have no interest whatsoever in playing PVP competitively, the shield hopscotch dance is simply not for me and my schedule. PVE is already too much time but at least it's guaranted reward/effort.

Now you can check my 4* roster, I need 160 covers to finish the ones I have and 52 to covers the one I don't have.

I make about 6 legendary tokens a month plus the odd lucky heroic, that would be around three years to have something looking like my current 3* roster. Oops, that's with lucky not overlapping draws, so add a substantial number of months to that, say four years. Now how many 4* characters will be added in the meantime I wonder. Probably enough to make it 40, that's 20x13 covers added to the total... And let's not mention the 5* .

I think having a 4* DDQ equivalent to the 3* DDQ would cut that time in half (another six covers a month) and I would probably have a good set of fully covered 4* in two/three years. Not much to write home about since I'm already one year in, I doubt that would qualify as "skipping" anything.

PVP is the 4* transition at the moment. What I got from this post is: "Well, I don't want to play PVP, we should have an alternative." Yeah, if you ignore the other half of the game your progress is going to be severely stunted. shrug

Der_Lex

I think your view about attaining 3* and 4* characters these days is a bit too rose-colored, Dauthi.

A major issue with both is the increased character pool. With 40 3* characters, collecting enough covers to have one useable will be a challenge for early 2-3* transitioners even with DDQ, which grants only 1 cover per character per month. Worse still, the fastest way to get 3* in the olden days, by pvp placement for 2-3 covers, has been blocked off by us 4* folks taking the top spots for the ISO/1300 prog reward/season score.

With 4*s the larger character pool comes into play as well. Before the bimonthly 4* character releases started, it was still very achieveable to get a 4* up and running in a reasonable amount of time, especially if you did well in their initial character release PvE. But right now, there are too many 4* characters for the 1k prog cover to be sufficient on its own, the 1300 prog reward is almost unnattainable to an early 3-4* transitioner (and even if they make it, the token result is still random, so good luck trying to level one or two specific characters) and 1st place is usually reserved for those with stronger rosters both in PvP and PvE, and/or a lot of HP to burn on shields in PvP.

I still think the placement reward system needs to undergo some revisions, and a 3-4* transitioner node for DDQ in addition to the one we have now (which I enjoy playing, so I'd be sad to see it altered) wouldn't exactly be like they're handing out 4*s like free candy either.

Dauthi

Der_Lex wrote:

A major issue with both is the increased character pool. With 40 3* characters, collecting enough covers to have one useable will be a challenge for early 2-3* transitioners even with DDQ, which grants only 1 cover per character per month. Worse still, the fastest way to get 3* in the olden days, by pvp placement for 2-3 covers, has been blocked off by us 4* folks taking the top spots for the ISO/1300 prog reward/season score.

Do you believe 3* transitioners can easily get 1 cover per pvp (occasionally 2)? That's guaranteed progress every pvp. You don't get that at higher rosters.

With 4*s the larger character pool comes into play as well. Before the bimonthly 4* character releases started, it was still very achieveable to get a 4* up and running in a reasonable amount of time, especially if you did well in their initial character release PvE. But right now, there are too many 4* characters for the 1k prog cover to be sufficient on its own, the 1300 prog reward is almost unnattainable to an early 3-4* transitioner (and even if they make it, the token result is still random, so good luck trying to level one or two specific characters) and 1st place is usually reserved for those with stronger rosters both in PvP and PvE, and/or a lot of HP to burn on shields in PvP.

I still think the placement reward system needs to undergo some revisions, and a 3-4* transitioner node for DDQ in addition to the one we have now (which I enjoy playing, so I'd be sad to see it altered) wouldn't exactly be like they're handing out 4*s like free candy either.

If you want to argue that we need more avenues to obtain 4*s across the board, that's a different argument. However I strongly believe high end rosters need more tokens and avenues because progress becomes stunted due to obtaining doubles. This is exactly what 4* DDQs is meant to do, if that changes low end rosters will be gaining by far more progress than 4* rosters.

smkspy

I can settle with 4 stars being at next level that I strive to achieve after I get up my 3 stars, but yeah, the massive amount of seasoned 4 star players and now 5 star are making placement in pvp insane for a 3 star cover. My only thought is that they could make attaining a 3 star in regular progression a bit earlier than towards the end. When I play pvp, I get around to 600 and 3 star is around 800, but at that point I'm being constantly attacked by 4 star players losing any progress that I make. I could care less about finished placement, if that meant I could get a 3 star early in the round.

If not that, then the taco vault needs to add more 3 stars and reduce the amount of 2 stars and health packs.

Unknown

Dauthi wrote:

If you want to argue that we need more avenues to obtain 4*s across the board, that's a different argument. However I strongly believe high end rosters need more tokens and avenues because progress becomes stunted due to obtaining doubles. This is exactly what 4* DDQs is meant to do, if that changes low end rosters will be gaining by far more progress than 4* rosters.

This argument seems off to me. Better rosters will do better at placing and PVP progression already. As for the need for more tokens because fewer 4*s are useful, I must say that letting others get the legendary tokens alongside you will not hurt your progress. They, too, will hit that bottleneck, so they are not going to suddenly pass you as a result of this.

Turbosmooth

When the developer had an interview with Marvel.com before Legendaries came out, it was stated there that DDQ would have a very hard node. I think on this forum, it was lumped in to a post about how you can get through the 4* transition with the help of this node. More people read the latter and cried foul. I don't see too many complaints about not hitting 1300 PvP (maybe not reading enough). I can't get above 1050 myself, and I understand that 1300 is restricted to top players. DDQ has that same level of restriction depending who is in rotation.

Elektra is next and mine is only 1/0/2 and will not even make an attempt. I've gotten all the other DDQ's but don't feel entitled that I should have this one too. I'm amazed my Elektra is covered so poorly even though I got her before 4*thor and yet 4*thor is 3/5/4. I got Elektra's second red in the last PvP too, so just have been unlucky on her covers. Although she seems to rank just above Starlord, so I rather have my other 4*s with more covers anyway.

DDQ 4* is beatable when you have about Lv131+ for the essential. Not too bad really. Something to strive for.

Dauthi

drewesque wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

If you want to argue that we need more avenues to obtain 4*s across the board, that's a different argument. However I strongly believe high end rosters need more tokens and avenues because progress becomes stunted due to obtaining doubles. This is exactly what 4* DDQs is meant to do, if that changes low end rosters will be gaining by far more progress than 4* rosters.

This argument seems off to me. Better rosters will do better at placing and PVP progression already. As for the need for more tokens because fewer 4*s are useful, I must say that letting others get the legendary tokens alongside you will not hurt your progress. They, too, will hit that bottleneck, so they are not going to suddenly pass you as a result of this.

Since luck is a factor with legendaries, this isn't necessarily true. Thanks to the bottleneck unlucky players could easily get stuck there while 3* players easily catch up thanks to the accelerated progress. 4* DDQs is a solution to this "bottleneck". With 3* rosters it wouldn't help with a bottleneck, but allow a fast progression.

In short, the better your 4* roster the worse legendary tokens are for you. So D3 created a reverse situation where the better your 4* roster, the more 4* tokens you can gain hopefully evening it out.