The greatest flaw of Legendary Tokens

OneLastGambit

On a long enough time line RNG will generate randomness, however your timeline (usually a couple of months or so) is but a snippet of how long you would need to study it to determine if it were actually random.

Just for edification: the length of time you would need to study to determine if RNG generates things randomly? Infinity, it is an endless study. Any time you stop the study of the RNG you create a pattern by not allowing it to continue.

Randomness and statistics is a field of mathematics that even confuses professional statisticians, I guess the human brain (which incidentally is evolutionarily hardwired to look for patterns where they don't exist - see: superstition) just cannot comprehend random.

XandorXerxes

OneLastGambit wrote:

On a long enough time line RNG will generate randomness, however your timeline (usually a couple of months or so) is but a snippet of how long you would need to study it to determine if it were actually random.

Just for edification: the length of time you would need to study to determine if RNG generates things randomly? Infinity, it is an endless study. Any time you stop the study of the RNG you create a pattern by not allowing it to continue.

Randomness and statistics is a field of mathematics that even confuses professional statisticians, I guess the human brain (which incidentally is evolutionarily hardwired to look for patterns where they don't exist - see: superstition) just cannot comprehend random.

I completely agree with the first part of your post, and completely disagree with the second.

20 legendary tokens would be a lot to some people from an earnings perspective, but from a statistical perspective it's a really small sample size. Calculating percents off of less than hundreds of tokens could lead to variances due to sample size. The law of large numbers says we don't need to study things to infinity, there are values that are sufficiently large to extrapolate an accurate rate within an acceptable boundary. As for understanding randomness and statistics... a lot of actuaries are very good at their job.

Ironically it's not the human brain that can't comprehend random, it's a computer. You can't tell a computer to generate a random number, how to create a random number has to be coded into it. Random numbers are in fact not at all random, but numbers generated using an algorithm. I'd wager the most common algorithm takes the time represented as a number (year, month, day, hour, minute, second, millisecond) and then performs a sequence of functions on that number. Many randomness algorithms have been discarded because they aren't appropriately random - it's actually how a few encryption methods have been broken. Part of my rants on here about cascades is not that the AI cheats, but that if they were sufficiently random they wouldn't happen as often as they do.

For example, if it was a simple random algorithm based on time without an additional buffer built in and the computer generated 4 "random" values for a color within the same time frame (such as a millisecond), they would all be the same color. Realistically when a new top row drops in, having a 4-in-a-row drop in as a part of that row should happen about 1 out of every 300 times. 5 in a row? 1 in 2,000. 6? 1 in 12,500 (same applies for vertical rows - but be careful not to count horizontal 4-in-a-rows that result from a vertical 4-in-a-row). I shouldn't be playing nearly enough to see several of those events, especially in one night, regardless if it's me or the computer. Maybe one day I'll sit down with a counter, but that sounds really boring.

Which is why when a dev says it's random and people then turn around and say "cascades are random, lol, it's just you seeing things" I roll my eyes. Just because the code says random() doesn't mean that it's accurately being generated randomly. Then again it could be entirely random and I've just hit that extreme end of luck where it's highly unlikely but I still managed to do it (people win the lottery, after all). Given all the complaints on cascades and AI cheating though, I doubt it. That said, I don't think it's maliciously done or intentional. I believe them when they say it was coded to be random. I just don't think it's sufficiently so.

Pylgrim

OneLastGambit wrote:

You're assuming that the run of luck is per person - i.e everyone will have equal amounts of good and bad luck. However what you're not accounting for is that the RNG is for the system - not per player. So as someone rightly points out above you may get all the bad luck but someone out there is getting all the good luck, and thusly the system is actually dishing out equal amounts of good and bad luck.

Does it suck? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. My luck with legendaries is pretty good, an even spread among characters that I both want to build and own. However someone out there is definitely getting my heroic token luck because it should just be renamed the 'MHawkeye token' for me.

Man, transparently spoken such as someone who has benefited from good luck and missing the point of the person who has suffered from bad luck (I think kids today call that "privilege"). I'm pretty sure I already have had to point this out before in this thread, but here it goes again: I fully understand how luck works. I understand that in the same way I've had a dismal run so far, my luck can suddenly turn and get a solid stream of 5*s for a while, etc. My problem, in other words, is not with luck itself but with the employment of luck as the prize handler for the highest level of reward in the game. Luck has a place in the game, but not at the top level of rewards.

While, statistically, a percentage of players (including you) will get to feel super great from opening tons of good stuff, the same percentage of players get to feel frustrated, discouraged and outraged from opening **** time after time even when they have super high odds of opening useful things (such as me: my ratio of maxed covers to non-maxed ones is lower than 1 to 5. I theoretically should be opening useful stuff over 80% of the time, yet I've been screwed by randomness so far to get it only 27% of time at a rather high sample size.) We've both put the same amount of effort towards it, but only I get to feel like ****... this shouldn't happen. Not with the highest level of reward. At this level we both should be happy and rewarded for our efforts but the use of luck disallows it. The solution? Diminish or completely remove luck from the equation. There are several ways to do so that have been proposed in this thread.

Unknown

I might be part of a minority on the forums, but my biggest problem is that the game is missing a "less legendary" token for a guaranteed 3* with a smaller chance of a 4*. Right now, I can achieve one leg token per PVE event, since, as people consistently point out on the forum, rosters like mine aren't ready to score big in PVP.

My problem is that opening a legendary token does absolutely nothing for me in terms of advancement. I don't need a second 4* cover for anyone yet. I certainly don't need a 5* cover to skew my roster. While it's nice to see the gold trim on a cover, it does zilch to help me overcome the "rich get richer" mentality clearly applied to this game during development. Instead, I have to drop 800 HP on another roster slot, or piecemeal cover another 4* I don't have the ISO to level or the covers to use.

I can only imagine the frustration that must come with opening a legendary token and getting one of your very few maxed characters. I go into the opening of every legendary token disappointed, since a third cover for Ant Man is meaningless when I need 200+ 3* covers to advance. My suggestion for this is the same as the one I proposed here. Let me choose my placement award. If I want to roll for a 4*, let me do that. If I want to roll for a 3, 2, or 1, let me do that too. Maybe even let people choose whether they want to exclude covers they already have. A legendary token should feel legendary to everybody, not just to people who rolled a 17 on the d20.

puppychow

Pylgrim wrote:

My problem, in other words, is not with luck itself but with the employment of luck as the prize handler for the highest level of reward in the game. Luck has a place in the game, but not at the top level of rewards.

The solution? Diminish or completely remove luck from the equation. There are several ways to do so that have been proposed in this thread.

As a consumer, I am completely in favor of removing luck from the prize handling. Let the consumer decide which cover to grab. As a businessman, I understand this would be disastrous to D3's bottom line because once players get the cover(s) that they need, they will no longer spend money.

D3 is a for-profit business enterprise that constantly seeks ways to increase profitability. Look at the nerf for xf and thora for example. When thorevine was all powerful in the pvp metagame, players no longer needed new covers because this combo was better than anything else available or coming down the pipe. Thus, D3 made changes to this combo that severely weakened the characters; it is no surprise that new 4* releases afterwards were "better" than the nerfed versions of thora/xf because otherwise players would have no incentive to buy cover packs to unlock the new covers and max out the new characters.

The pass-through feature of Command Points is another nod to increasing profitability. Why should the rest of the alliance receive CPs whenever a member makes a $20, 50, or 100 purchase? Part of it is social, to encourage members to spend major $$$ and adopt a do-it-for-the-team mentality; D3 is exploiting peer pressure to get players to spend $$$ and increase its bottom line.

If you remove luck/chance/whatever you want to call it from prize handler, players will no longer buy cover packs and D3's sales revenues will decrease. This cannot be allowed. And thus, your suggestion will unlikely to ever be adopted.

Raffoon

Pylgrim wrote:

OneLastGambit wrote:

You're assuming that the run of luck is per person - i.e everyone will have equal amounts of good and bad luck. However what you're not accounting for is that the RNG is for the system - not per player. So as someone rightly points out above you may get all the bad luck but someone out there is getting all the good luck, and thusly the system is actually dishing out equal amounts of good and bad luck.

Does it suck? Sometimes yes and sometimes no. My luck with legendaries is pretty good, an even spread among characters that I both want to build and own. However someone out there is definitely getting my heroic token luck because it should just be renamed the 'MHawkeye token' for me.

Man, transparently spoken such as someone who has benefited from good luck and missing the point of the person who has suffered from bad luck (I think kids today call that "privilege"). I'm pretty sure I already have had to point this out before in this thread, but here it goes again: I fully understand how luck works. I understand that in the same way I've had a dismal run so far, my luck can suddenly turn and get a solid stream of 5*s for a while, etc. My problem, in other words, is not with luck itself but with the employment of luck as the prize handler for the highest level of reward in the game. Luck has a place in the game, but not at the top level of rewards.

While, statistically, a percentage of players (including you) will get to feel super great from opening tons of good stuff, the same percentage of players get to feel frustrated, discouraged and outraged from opening **** time after time even when they have super high odds of opening useful things (such as me: my ratio of maxed covers to non-maxed ones is lower than 1 to 5. I theoretically should be opening useful stuff over 80% of the time, yet I've been screwed by randomness so far to get it only 27% of time at a rather high sample size.) We've both put the same amount of effort towards it, but only I get to feel like ****... this shouldn't happen. Not with the highest level of reward. At this level we both should be happy and rewarded for our efforts but the use of luck disallows it. The solution? Diminish or completely remove luck from the equation. There are several ways to do so that have been proposed in this thread.

Hey Pylgrim, OneLastGambit wasn't actually replying to you, he was replying to the post "Tales of Shady/Suspicious Coding" which seems to have been mushed into this thread. The guy he was responding to opened 4 tokens and got 3 that weren't useful.

This is why merging threads is confusing.

It sounds to me like he's in perfect agreement that this sucks for some people.

Pylgrim

puppychow wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

My problem, in other words, is not with luck itself but with the employment of luck as the prize handler for the highest level of reward in the game. Luck has a place in the game, but not at the top level of rewards.

The solution? Diminish or completely remove luck from the equation. There are several ways to do so that have been proposed in this thread.

As a consumer, I am completely in favor of removing luck from the prize handling. Let the consumer decide which cover to grab. As a businessman, I understand this would be disastrous to D3's bottom line because once players get the cover(s) that they need, they will no longer spend money.

D3 is a for-profit business enterprise that constantly seeks ways to increase profitability. Look at the nerf for xf and thora for example. When thorevine was all powerful in the pvp metagame, players no longer needed new covers because this combo was better than anything else available or coming down the pipe. Thus, D3 made changes to this combo that severely weakened the characters; it is no surprise that new 4* releases afterwards were "better" than the nerfed versions of thora/xf because otherwise players would have no incentive to buy cover packs to unlock the new covers and max out the new characters.

The pass-through feature of Command Points is another nod to increasing profitability. Why should the rest of the alliance receive CPs whenever a member makes a $20, 50, or 100 purchase? Part of it is social, to encourage members to spend major $$$ and adopt a do-it-for-the-team mentality; D3 is exploiting peer pressure to get players to spend $$$ and increase its bottom line.

If you remove luck/chance/whatever you want to call it from prize handler, players will no longer buy cover packs and D3's sales revenues will decrease. This cannot be allowed. And thus, your suggestion will unlikely to ever be adopted.

Yeah, that's all true, that's why I said that I think luck is fine in other parts of the game and I've never complained much about odds while doing my 3* transition even before they fixed them a lot. The problem is that LTs are a premium and supremely scarce prize (that takes a lot of effort to earn). Let's take a period of 2 weeks (the average release time for new characters). That's up to six 1.3k PVP LTs, around three PVE last progression rewards LTs and around three 4* DDQ LTs.... this only if you are the highest level of competition and dedication that would allow such results. That's 12 covers to catch up to however many of the existing 63 4* covers you are still missing before 13 new covers are released! This is compounded by the fact that there are very few other ways of getting certain 4* covers and you have made impossible to ever catch up.

So now with CPs you are supposed to be able to get (again, playing at the highest level of competition and dedication) an additional LT per week. So 13 per week, meaning that if you have all covers that you need and you play in all the events and can always place high, AND you could choose your reward from each LT, you'd still be barely catching up to every release, and would need to keep playing just as hard for as long as they release new characters and still have the 5* tier to look forward to. But that's only a tiny percentage of the population. Most 4* transitioners, I think, get only 3-5 LTs every two weeks. So, even if luck was completely eliminated we wouldn't be catching up any time soon!

My own solution (a small, quickly rotating vault for LTs) doesn't even completely remove the luck factor but allows a measure of control and strategy to the use of your precious tokens.

Raffoon wrote:

Hey Pylgrim, OneLastGambit wasn't actually replying to you, he was replying to the post "Tales of Shady/Suspicious Coding" which seems to have been mushed into this thread. The guy he was responding to opened 4 tokens and got 3 that weren't useful.

This is why merging threads is confusing.

It sounds to me like he's in perfect agreement that this sucks for some people.

Oops, if that's so, apologies.

Pylgrim

After 12 grueling tries in KP's DDQ, I got my 20th LT.. it was the 4th green Carnage cover I've opened from tokens and the third I've had to trash. That's 5 useful covers in 20 drawn, for a success rate of 25%... when it should be 80%+ based on the amount of covers I need. Bumping this, because this still needs to be fixed.

SirLanik

Really baffled at people who are of the opinion that "fixing" Legendary tokens means "give me the random drops that I need, and don't give me the random drops I don't need."

Yeah, it sucks to get covers you don't need. After I got my very first 3* fully covered, I got another 6(!) covers for him in a row before I got another 3* cover. Incredibly frustrating. That doesn't mean that heroic tokens are "broken" any more than Legendary tokens are broken.

Polares

Yesterday I pulled a yellow The thing and my spell of good luck with legendaries ended as suddenly as it came. But the thing is (did you see what I did there ), I have pulled 6 Things ALL of them yellow, all the other covers I have, I had to win them in PvE, progression, etc. but it seems I can just pull yellow from tokens. The chances of pulling 6 covers of any color are just 0.12% It is a very unlikely event, but we keep seeing those things over and over. That doesnt seem RNG at all (or at least not a good one ).

So we have the problem of getting always the same chars, and then getting always the same colors. Great

I was so happy lately, pulling useful covers

PS: Yeah I know every time I open a token I have 33% chances of pulling any cover (I know there is no memory). But If I had to open 6 tokens, the chance of getting 6 covers with the same color is 0.12%#
PS: And I suppose the system works, first it determines randomly which char you win, and then it determines randomly which color. If it does all at the same time then it is even more unlikely to pull 6 times the same guy with the same color.

dr tinykittylove

SirLanik wrote:

Really baffled at people who are of the opinion that "fixing" Legendary tokens means "give me the random drops that I need, and don't give me the random drops I don't need."

Yeah, it sucks to get covers you don't need. After I got my very first 3* fully covered, I got another 6(!) covers for him in a row before I got another 3* cover. Incredibly frustrating. That doesn't mean that heroic tokens are "broken" any more than Legendary tokens are broken.

I don't think anyone is saying "give me only good stuff", exactly, more that "making the ultimate reward in the game a lottery ticket is kind of tinykitty and here's why".

Look at it this way - I sell plenty of unnecessary covers just playing the game normally - there's 1*-2* covers from standard tokens and pvp drops, 2*-3* covers from heroic/event tokens, every pvp and pve I sell between 2-4 3* covers from progression and placement, I sell most of the 4* covers I get from 1k progression and rare token drops.

And what the game says to me when it offers me a legendary token as the top progression reward in pvp and pve is - "CONGRATS! YOU HAVE WON THE BESTEST THING EVER! it's 1000 iso!" Erm... Thanks a lot?

I'm not even a whale or a top player, I just happen to have played a long time. Think about how it's like for anyone who has been around long enough to get a surfer (80 more days for me), or who has been playing pvp or pve competitively, or who simply happened to get a lot of lucky pulls/whaled out on a few favourite characters. Leaving these hard-to-earn rewards to luck really sucks. Does that make sense?

TxMoose

SirLanik wrote:

Really baffled at people who are of the opinion that "fixing" Legendary tokens means "give me the random drops that I need, and don't give me the random drops I don't need."

not that LTs are broken, but more general frustration that at a time when more and more players are entering and moving through a 4* transition, they have actually reduced the number of set covers you can shoot for in the game. my first 1300 was for the last set cover there (hb red). if the 1300 reward had stayed a set cover, I would have targeted many more of them than the random token. additionally, but much less significant, they also replaced the set covers for season awards for alliance rank and individual season progression with LTs. so in a season, there are 12 less opportunities to know what the heck you're getting. I think that is the source of more frustration than anything.

was also disappointed that the pve progression was a token - still think the essential 4* needs to be in the progression somewhere.

OneLastGambit

Pylgrim wrote:

puppychow wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

My problem, in other words, is not with luck itself but with the employment of luck as the prize handler for the highest level of reward in the game. Luck has a place in the game, but not at the top level of rewards.

The solution? Diminish or completely remove luck from the equation. There are several ways to do so that have been proposed in this thread.

As a consumer, I am completely in favor of removing luck from the prize handling. Let the consumer decide which cover to grab. As a businessman, I understand this would be disastrous to D3's bottom line because once players get the cover(s) that they need, they will no longer spend money.

D3 is a for-profit business enterprise that constantly seeks ways to increase profitability. Look at the nerf for xf and thora for example. When thorevine was all powerful in the pvp metagame, players no longer needed new covers because this combo was better than anything else available or coming down the pipe. Thus, D3 made changes to this combo that severely weakened the characters; it is no surprise that new 4* releases afterwards were "better" than the nerfed versions of thora/xf because otherwise players would have no incentive to buy cover packs to unlock the new covers and max out the new characters.

The pass-through feature of Command Points is another nod to increasing profitability. Why should the rest of the alliance receive CPs whenever a member makes a $20, 50, or 100 purchase? Part of it is social, to encourage members to spend major $$$ and adopt a do-it-for-the-team mentality; D3 is exploiting peer pressure to get players to spend $$$ and increase its bottom line.

If you remove luck/chance/whatever you want to call it from prize handler, players will no longer buy cover packs and D3's sales revenues will decrease. This cannot be allowed. And thus, your suggestion will unlikely to ever be adopted.

Yeah, that's all true, that's why I said that I think luck is fine in other parts of the game and I've never complained much about odds while doing my 3* transition even before they fixed them a lot. The problem is that LTs are a premium and supremely scarce prize (that takes a lot of effort to earn). Let's take a period of 2 weeks (the average release time for new characters). That's up to six 1.3k PVP LTs, around three PVE last progression rewards LTs and around three 4* DDQ LTs.... this only if you are the highest level of competition and dedication that would allow such results. That's 12 covers to catch up to however many of the existing 63 4* covers you are still missing before 13 new covers are released! This is compounded by the fact that there are very few other ways of getting certain 4* covers and you have made impossible to ever catch up.

So now with CPs you are supposed to be able to get (again, playing at the highest level of competition and dedication) an additional LT per week. So 13 per week, meaning that if you have all covers that you need and you play in all the events and can always place high, AND you could choose your reward from each LT, you'd still be barely catching up to every release, and would need to keep playing just as hard for as long as they release new characters and still have the 5* tier to look forward to. But that's only a tiny percentage of the population. Most 4* transitioners, I think, get only 3-5 LTs every two weeks. So, even if luck was completely eliminated we wouldn't be catching up any time soon!

My own solution (a small, quickly rotating vault for LTs) doesn't even completely remove the luck factor but allows a measure of control and strategy to the use of your precious tokens.

Raffoon wrote:

Hey Pylgrim, OneLastGambit wasn't actually replying to you, he was replying to the post "Tales of Shady/Suspicious Coding" which seems to have been mushed into this thread. The guy he was responding to opened 4 tokens and got 3 that weren't useful.

This is why merging threads is confusing.

It sounds to me like he's in perfect agreement that this sucks for some people.

Oops, if that's so, apologies.

Yep it was a response to someone else. No offense taken. I do think luck sucks but it is pretty fair half of the time. I think maybe if your luck alternated more frequently people wouldn't be as mad, if you got one useful then 2 not useful for example do you think it would be as bothersome? I think it's the runs that make people mad.
I have big issues with the RNG as a 3* transitioner because it's where all my bad luck lies, just for example:

I started tracking my heroic/event token pulls 76 pulls ago after getting a really annoying run of MHawkeyes (he still plagues me now) and found that of my 76 I got 2 3* covers.

That's not two usable covers, that's 2 3* covers at all - out of 76, and the last one was 51 pulls ago. So when I say I know it is a sucky system (as a 3* transitioner) I mean it. However without that same system guess how many 4* characters I would have? Zero. If all 4* and above tokens were placement awards and not legendaries (as some want) then I would have zero. What's worse is I would likely never get one as breaking into the 4* club requires 4* characters. So eventually when I transition to 4* I should find it easier as I'm kind of already in a small 4* transition while doing the 3* one. That's thanks to RNGesus

dr tinykittylove

OneLastGambit wrote:

[
If all 4* and above tokens were placement awards and not legendaries (as some want) then I would have zero. What's worse is I would likely never get one as breaking into the 4* club requires 4* characters. So eventually when I transition to 4* I should find it easier as I'm kind of already in a small 4* transition while doing the 3* one. That's thanks to RNGesus

That's not what we are talking about at all! No one is saying we need to throw out tokens and progression rewards! Just that making the top award a coin toss is just such a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad thing because it is assured to make people sad.

Like many have said - why not put the 4* essential in pve progression, for example. Wouldn't that be more useful than another 2 or 3 Mhawkeye tokens?

And one last thing. It is not necessary to have 4*s to win 4*s. The 1k pvp progression is regularly won by 3* rosters. And even though a 4* progression in pve would make more sense, the legendary progression at least gives you access to a random 4*. It's just very slow. And it's just as slow (or slower) for people who already have 4*s. Nobody wins.

SirLanik

So far everyone has said "we're not saying you should give us what we want automatically, just that getting something random feels bad."

Well the alternative to getting something random... is something not random? Which is to say, getting something you want.

If you think Legendary Tokens are flawed because you hate getting something random, then you are (whether you realize it or not) saying that you want to be given what you want. It's one or the other, there's no inbetween here.

Unknown

just want to offer a little solution: while pulling 3/4 star cover player got the chance to switch that for color cover with their respective rarity and applied to character that we lack the cover/color same rarity. ie pull purple fury changed it into purple cover 4 star and applied later to any of lacking purple cover 4 star . . . .errr no?

simonsez

SirLanik wrote:

So far everyone has said "we're not saying you should give us what we want automatically, just that getting something random feels bad."

Well the alternative to getting something random... is something not random? Which is to say, getting something you want.

If you think Legendary Tokens are flawed because you hate getting something random, then you are (whether you realize it or not) saying that you want to be given what you want. It's one or the other, there's no inbetween here.

Of course there is. It's getting something random among the subset of covers that you need.

TxMoose

SirLanik wrote:

So far everyone has said "we're not saying you should give us what we want automatically, just that getting something random feels bad."

Well the alternative to getting something random... is something not random? Which is to say, getting something you want.

If you think Legendary Tokens are flawed because you hate getting something random, then you are (whether you realize it or not) saying that you want to be given what you want. It's one or the other, there's no inbetween here.

actually don't want starlord or IW, but I'd love to see them as a reward because that meant I another character would be coming next that I would know wth it is. the 3* transition was not terribly difficult because of the abundance of SET COVERS that could be earned throughout pve, pvp, and ddq. I could take some pve or pvp off (or lighter) because I knew those were not needed/wanted. i could also grind like mad for those i needed, even if it wasn't for a top tier character (my only pve t10 was for psylocke, which i needed). I could manage my playtime. all we're asking is that a similar setup for what is to be the future heart of the veteran's game (4*s). we know that the sheer number of covers will be lower and the transition will be understandably slower, but once you're 70% covered, you're likely basically screwed from finishing because of what? not your skill level or commitment to the game or your level of play activity...all from sheer luck. the longer 5* and to a lesser extent 4*s continue to be sheer luck, the wider the gap between the lucky and unlucky and the longer the unlucky stay unlucky, the more likely they are to disengage. and this affects the long-time players of the game that have put in probably 1000+ hours playing, who love the game - it affects them the most, which is very unfortunate. I'm very fortunate to be on the lucky side of things but i still don't think its a great game model. the next guy with the same skill level and activity level as me pulls IW and Elektra instead of my hb and jean pulls and they still struggle their way up to 1K while i ease up to 1300 - how fair is that?

Pylgrim

SirLanik wrote:

So far everyone has said "we're not saying you should give us what we want automatically, just that getting something random feels bad."

Well the alternative to getting something random... is something not random? Which is to say, getting something you want.

If you think Legendary Tokens are flawed because you hate getting something random, then you are (whether you realize it or not) saying that you want to be given what you want. It's one or the other, there's no inbetween here.

Have you actually read the thread or are you just trolling? People have posted several suggestions in which luck is still involved to a degree but the likelihood of being screwed over and over is diminished. Previously you posted that you once opened 6 heroics and they were all a character that you just have finished... you know what's the difference? Right now I could jump into the game and get 6 heroic (or similar) tokens or even more, today, with moderate amounts of effort. You know how long and how hard will it be to get 6 LTs? That's the difference and why you cannot keep the same kind of odds in both scenarios.

GTannen73

I thought about this after squeaking through the Elektra DDQ node and pulling my sixth red Elektra cover.

My suggestion was inspired by how Contest of Champions handles RNGesus giving you the finger when you're questing for a catalyst. If the catalyst fails to appear, you're sometimes given the opportunity to buy it, with a few other goodies thrown in, for a certain number of units (their equivalent to HP). So, what if they did this...?

You open your Legendary token and pull a sixth cover. When you tap Continue, Deadpool pops up. "Oh, bummer. You already have that ability maxed, don't you? Well, don't go all sad face on me just yet..."

"I happen to have a whole bunch of extra covers lying around here somewhere. I suppose I can get you one of a different color..."

"But not for free, of course. For the low low price of x HP, I'll swap you that cover for a different ability for that character."

"Oh, you want a different character? That'll be a bit more, 'cause that's a different pile. More work, ya know. But I'll do it for y HP. Whaddaya say?"

There can be options to pull a specific character, etc. This way, you can get something you want, thus making sure that your Legendary token pull doesn't suck. Is it a perfect solution? No, because you can still get **** luck and have to shell out HP to get what you want, but I think having the option would be better than not having it.