A Serious Problem with 4*s

Dauthi

Every single release of 4* has been notably better than Starlord, Elektra, and Invisible Woman (besides Mr.Fantastic). While Nick and XF are better, they are still leaps and bounds behind most new 4*s. All of them are at the bottom of a bucket that is getting deeper and deeper, making them worse every day, XF/Nick probably taking the biggest hit because while the others were always bad, those two are becoming no longer even viable. Since legendary tokens started, this has become more relevant because pulling these characters is what it felt like to pull a bag-man before D3 wised up and removed him from the packs.

Can we either get buffs to these characters, CP from selling 4*s, or at least get the lazy route D3 did with bag-man and just remove some of them from the packs? Over half of my pulls from 17 legendaries were XF/Nick/IW, which is really frustrating.

wirius

I feel your pain Dauthi. Out of the three legendaries I earned, I received 2 Invisible woman green, a power and character I already have maxed out.

OneLastGambit

Personally I don't have an issue with Nick or IW, are they top tier? no. Are they useful? yes. Nick is pretty good on defense and IW is a beast in PVE. If you are are just a PVP player then IW probably is useless but otherwise they serve their place. It's not as though either of them is as useless as Yelena.

acescracked

Whew!! Read the thread title and got worried. Dodged a bullet there! Hyperbole in thread titles can scare people, careful with that.

puppychow

Dauthi wrote:

Every single release of 4* has been notably better than Starlord, Elektra, and Invisible Woman. While Nick and XF are better, they are still leaps and bounds behind most new 4*s. All of them are at the bottom of a bucket that is getting deeper and deeper, making them worse every day, XF/Nick probably taking the biggest hit because while the others were always bad, those two are becoming no longer even viable. Since legendary tokens started, this has become more relevant because pulling these characters is what it felt like to pull a bag-man before D3 wised up and removed him from the packs.

I think we can agree that D3 is in the business of making money. So everything they do must be viewed in terms of increasing revenues. Now IF a new 4* is INFERIOR to the old core of Starlord, Elektra, etc., would players BOTHER to grind for the new covers, or buy cover packs in hopes of getting them? Of course not.

Here's another analogy. Look at Fallout franchise. If Fallout 4 is an inferior game to the previous releases, would players bother to buy it? No.

There is an inherent need for game developers to release characters that are attractive to the veteran players, in order to convince them to buy cover packs and then spend hp to max cover. This is why new releases have to be better than prior releases. Or else D3 won't make any $$$ off new characters.

TxMoose

completely agree puppy. it would just be nice if they adjusted the old guard when the power gap gets too big. seems like that is needed right about now.

Malcrof

Dauthi wrote:

Every single release of 4* has been notably better than Starlord, Elektra, and Invisible Woman.

Wrong on this one.. Reed is by far the worst 4* in the ranks.. he has 1 decent ability, and that basically puts him on par with boosted vision blue..


and he is much newer than others. SL likes to play spoiler with that yellow of his, plus he can overwrite... IW and Elektra are useful in PVE.. i have yet to find a reason to use reed.. unless i am forced to when he is an essential.

Dragon_Nexus

The issue was they didn't want 4*s to feel over powered and game ending when up against a 3*, so they toned them down a little to make it competitive.

Now, however, with 3* buffed there's not so much of an issue so 4*s have been getting more powerful and desirable. Problem is, as TC points out, the older nerfed characters weren't brought back into the fold, so there's a clear seperation between the old 4*s and the new ones.

I remember when Hulkbuster came out and people, myself included, assumed he'd only stay THAT good for a couple of months, because when Thoress and XFW were THAT good they got nerfed. HB never got altered in any way so he's still awesome. People refused to buy covers for him because they knew he'd get nerfed. Now we have plenty of 4*s as good as him, or at least comparable.

D3 really needs to revisit their original 4*s and give them some power back.

puppychow

Malcrof wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Every single release of 4* has been notably better than Starlord, Elektra, and Invisible Woman.

Wrong on this one.. Reed is by far the worst 4* in the ranks.. he has 1 decent ability, and that basically puts him on par with boosted vision blue..


and he is much newer than others. SL likes to play spoiler with that yellow of his, plus he can overwrite... IW and Elektra are useful in PVE.. i have yet to find a reason to use reed.. unless i am forced to when he is an essential.

Excellent point. Mr. F is soooooo far down the 4* totem pole that I hardly ever remember I have him on my roster. ouch.

puppychow

BlackBoltRocks wrote:

I shudder to think at how Reed will fare in 4* DDQ. Assuming it's Doom (fulfills both lore and two shared colours), Doom will eat him for breakfast

agreed. So far I managed to get all the leg tokens from weekly ddq. I highly doubt my string will continue when MR.F comes up for his turn in the ring.

CrookedKnight

Most times when I get a weak 4* from a token I remind myself that it'll still help me win DDQ, but with Mr. Fantastic I'm just glad I haven't seen any because he's screwed no matter what.

Dauthi

Malcrof wrote:

Dauthi wrote:

Every single release of 4* has been notably better than Starlord, Elektra, and Invisible Woman.

Wrong on this one.. Reed is by far the worst 4* in the ranks.. he has 1 decent ability, and that basically puts him on par with boosted vision blue..


and he is much newer than others. SL likes to play spoiler with that yellow of his, plus he can overwrite... IW and Elektra are useful in PVE.. i have yet to find a reason to use reed.. unless i am forced to when he is an essential.

You just gotta be that guy Ok, i'll alter it just so it will be factually correct so we can move on to the point of the post.

puppychow wrote:

I think we can agree that D3 is in the business of making money. So everything they do must be viewed in terms of increasing revenues. Now IF a new 4* is INFERIOR to the old core of Starlord, Elektra, etc., would players BOTHER to grind for the new covers, or buy cover packs in hopes of getting them? Of course not.

Here's another analogy. Look at Fallout franchise. If Fallout 4 is an inferior game to the previous releases, would players bother to buy it? No.

There is an inherent need for game developers to release characters that are attractive to the veteran players, in order to convince them to buy cover packs and then spend hp to max cover. This is why new releases have to be better than prior releases. Or else D3 won't make any $$$ off new characters.

I can't really jump into the conspiracy bandwagon, but as Dragon_Nexus pointed out Hulkbuster is a good example that your theory doesn't pan out. He never got nerfed, but instead was the line where the new level of 4*s power would be around. I think they altered XF/THor to conform to the bad 4*s, then decided later on a different level of power with Hulkbuster and future 4*s.

Making a good game makes more money in the long run than milking veterans. Besides, there will always be new players who need XF/Thor etc, and making them attractive to obtain will still make the game money because of this.