Make it easier to start

Unknown

As someone playing for less than 90 days, make getting through the 1 star, 2 star, and 3 star grinding easier. It's clear with the introduction of 5 star characters in September, longer term players consider 3 star characters the bare minimum, 4 stars the norm and, and 5 stars are now what they aim to build.

My single recommendation would be to change the drop rates within standard and heroic tokens to greatly increase the two and three star drops compared to current values. No longer term player cares about anything beyond the approximately 4 percent chance of getting a 4 star cover from an heroic token. No longer term player considers a standard token anything other than a source of ISO. If the lead designers are convinced the drop rate for 4 star covers is appropriate, please leave it alone at approximately 4 percent of the heroic token drop table.

Do change the standard tokens to hand out 1 star covers with approximately 20 percent of the drop table, 2 star covers with approximately 40 percent of the drop table, and 3 star covers with approximately 40 percent of the drop table. A similar improvement to the heroic token drop table would provide 2 star covers from approximately 56 percent of the drop table, 3 star covers from approximately 40 percent of the drop table, and 4 star covers from approximately 4 percent of the drop table.

I think the game (and game publishers) would benefit in the following ways:

• New players would remain enthusiastic about the progress building their roster at an accelerated rate.
• Players would likely spend more real money on hero coins to open up roster spots to accommodate the better covers.
• Likely more real money spent on hero coins to buy packs, knowing 3 star covers were more readily available.

This kind of change would have little to no impact on the time required or ability of a player to build out a 4 star roster, it would simply make new players feel better and more competitive in a short period of time. It has the chance of increasing real money spent on hero coins because perceived value for new players is much higher. It would also increase the rate of dropping covers that players would want to keep, possibly increasing real money spent on hero coins for roster slots. This seems like something players and the game publishers could both see as advantageous.

Rob13

Ooooor, you could go ahead and play a lot for a long time like everybody else has

simonsez

Hattrick6x9 wrote:

As someone playing for less than 90 days, make getting through the 1 star, 2 star, and 3 star grinding easier.

As someone playing for 2 years, make it easier to read this forum by not complaining that it's hard to get a competitive 3* roster after playing for 2 f'ing months

BlackSheep101

God, 90 days in I think I was still trying to figure out PVP, let alone thinking about maxing out a 3* roster.

I've read statements by reds, IceIX I think, that they want to avoid people ramping up their power level too quickly because it leads to burn out. Their goal is to get people on the hook and keep them there as long as possible. I imagine it would be easy to come up with arguments that fit the OP's point and jive with D3's goals, so I'll just leave it at that.

TxMoose

if they made it 'easier to start' and ramped up that expectation of progression speed in the game, there would be sooo much more disappointment later in the game when things grind down to a crawl. they already have issues setting expectations too high for things (see anniversary, galactus, 4*ddq, etc.).

successful business model = underpromise/overdeliver. they sometimes have that backwards.

Unknown

Rob13 wrote:

Ooooor, you could go ahead and play a lot for a long time like everybody else has

My intent isn't to undersell the amount of work others have put it; it is to call attention to the increasing barrier to entry that higher and higher characters levels form, especially considering the widening disparity between topped out rosters.

People complain about the matchmaking algorithm; this change probably solves some of those problems by getting someone to 166 faster (but not necessarily any faster to 270 or 450 without investment of significant time, only short circuited by significant investment of money for hero coins).

This change also moves someone through the 'boring' parts of the game without lessening the advantage a longer term player should expect for their investment of having played a long time and made a very competitive 270 roster.

All that said, I'd expect a longer term player to not really care about this change. The only difference they'd see in their game play would be additional ISO farmed from covers when they'd see additional 3 stars drop in place of the previous 2 star or 1 star covers.

Unknown

BlackSheep101 wrote:

God, 90 days in I think I was still trying to figure out PVP, let alone thinking about maxing out a 3* roster.

I've read statements by reds, IceIX I think, that they want to avoid people ramping up their power level too quickly because it leads to burn out. Their goal is to get people on the hook and keep them there as long as possible. I imagine it would be easy to come up with arguments that fit the OP's point and jive with D3's goals, so I'll just leave it at that.

I only point out my time in game to give the perspective from which I write. I know there are many players who play more aggressively than I do, and also many who play much more casually.

The challenge of burnout is a complicated one, and I won't pretend I know many of the factors that lead to it. I do know one of the most disappointing aspects of playing the game for me is having to grind through two useless levels, just to grind on a massive level that is less relevant as each day goes by.

No longer term player cares about 2 star rosters, most longer term players are looking backward at irrelevant 3 star rosters. I think the game publishers need to be aware of what new players feel about the boring parts of the game that might keep them from embracing it or sticking with it. Most new players expect to invest time or effort to get competitive with longer term players. Many new players quit games where that investment curve appears to be excessive, boring, or stupidly repetitive.

As a newer player entering the game, I doubt I'd recommend it to my friends in 3 months. At that point, 5 star rosters are going to be prevalent, and I'm unable to sell the idea to my friends who game that they need to grind through 90 days to build the base of a 3 star roster, and another 120 days to make that 3 star roster competitive, just to see that they still can't compete effectively until they have a 4 star roster. I'm committed to the game and my alliance because I've already put in half that grind. But the game designers are asking folks to put in 3/4 of a year of game play simply to get to the highest level of irrelevance while players really need to focus on is still how to get a good 4 star roster working for them.

Unknown

TxMoose wrote:

if they made it 'easier to start' and ramped up that expectation of progression speed in the game, there would be sooo much more disappointment later in the game when things grind down to a crawl. they already have issues setting expectations too high for things (see anniversary, galactus, 4*ddq, etc.).

successful business model = underpromise/overdeliver. they sometimes have that backwards.

I'll concede the point that there will definitely be a noticeable drop off in progression. There are points where the game designers are forcing things to go more slowly at the higher levels (like not allowing 5 star progress to be purchased for hero coins after an initial cover is won). So I really don't perceive going fast at the beginning and going much slower later being a huge problem.

I do know my alliance was disappointed with the anniversary events because they seemed to be tuned for 4 star rosters. I don't think the game designers can do much about that though, until we get 4 star rosters, I don't think we'll find those kind of events that much fun for us.

But I do think the game designers could embrace a change that might lead to much more real cash paid for hero coins during the time period where players are most enthralled with the game, that is, the very beginning, especially if covers are dropping like candy through increased drop rates. The perception for a brand new player is that a 3 star cover is something great. As someone who has played for 90 days, I realize the 3 star roster is just the final stepping stone to building a 4 star roster. If 3 star covers are dropping left and right, there would be no way to open enough roster spots to hold them without dropping cash for hero coins.

I think a successful business model is encouraging in app purchases from willing participants. This change would probably encourage more money to be spent.

udonomefoo

Hattrick6x9 wrote:

I think a successful business model is encouraging in app purchases from willing participants. This change would probably encourage more money to be spent.

I've always thought they were too tight with rewards, especially in new character release events for exactly this reason. It it was me, I'd be giving out that first cover of a new character to pretty much everyone. That being said, they have numbers that I don't. I'm guessing that they're making so much money from the rubes who buy 40 packs to try to win those first covers that they figure it's not worth giving out more to sell roster slots.

Bottom line with all these 4*, 3* progression complaints is that they make the most money from the whales, so the difficulty in obtaining covers is geared toward preventing the whales from obtaining them from any means but the most expensive. That leaves the reasonable players priced out of "just" buying covers for one character, because it costs $300 even if you already have 1/1/1 on them. :shrug:

Your point about 2-3* is valid though, because no whales are buying those at this point. I remember being where you're at and how frustrating it seems. All I can say is that if you're going to stick with this game.....get used to it.

TxMoose

Hattrick6x9 wrote:

I do know my alliance was disappointed with the anniversary events because they seemed to be tuned for 4 star rosters.

if you're talking about the pvp events, that is just where the player base is headed in higher level pvp. if you're talking about galactus, especially g2, i have to disagree with you. the most reliable team i had (and they never lost) was hulk, mostorm, 3* cap. my best strategy for g1 did include xforce, but he's the most covered 4* in the game, so that really didn't cater to full 4* players. you didn't have to have jean or hb or kp to be successful. xf really wasn't successful either, he just did the most damage before you got killed.

David [Hi-Fi] Moore

simonsez wrote:

As someone playing for 2 years, make it easier to read this forum by not complaining that it's hard to get a competitive 3* roster after playing for 2 f'ing months

Over the line. Please refrain from attacks like this on fellow forum users.