4* DDQ has been great with many thoughtful matches!

Phumade

Now that we are done with the first rotation. I have to say overall that the matchups have been well thought out and very innovative.

Has 4* ddq been an appropriate transition path for 3* looking to go to 4*? No! But taken for what it is, 4* ddq has had the most diverse and interesting matchups in the game since its introduction.

Things that I really liked.

1. Unlike the main game, where the emphasis is on AP acquisition and firing skills before the opponents, most of the 4* matchups focus on denying AP and creating strategic matches.

2. Most of the 4* matchups require you to combine multi-color skills in specific ways to highlight unique qualities of the character. While these combos are no surprise to veteran players, its great to see that the matches are really training players to see and use each character's skill set to the fullest potential. IW vs QS stands out to me as one of the more unique pairings.

3. I really like the matchups that acknowledge comic lore and tradition, why not extend the metaphore and go FFvsXmen, vs rainbow hulks, Team Spidey, Brother hood of mutants Avengers etc... For that matter, a good extension of the game would be for a list of secondary achievements ala. "devour a 5 star", "win a match in 1 turn" etc...

Things they should improve.

1. I really wish that the matches would be replayable. Afterall, we grind the same DA PVE characters ad nausem for 20iso, but the most interesting match of the day is a "win once and done". I'd be very interested in replaying some of the more challenging matchups.

PeterGibbons316

I completely agree and mentioned this in the "How many did you fail thread?" I'll repost it here.....

Hardest: Top 3 were probably Mr. F, Star-Lord, and FalCap - support characters suck 1v1
Easiest: ProfX, invisible and it's over. Iceman is a close 2nd, that cheap stun dominates 1v1.
Most fun: Elektra battles. Both Elektra v. Blade, and X-23 v. Elektra had some interesting dynamics that put the Puzzle back in MPQ for me.
Least fun: Devil Dino, he's really bad, and boring. Even the underleveled SG was tougher than I thought it would be.
Most surprising: Definitely Thoress v. Rags - I started getting in to PvP when XFW/4hor was a thing and Rags was garbage, this matchup highlighted the power of the nerf/buff.
Biggest sense of accomplishment: Keeping IW at level 70

For reference, my character levels upon completion of each DDQ4.....

X-Force vs. Cyclops won w/L180, 5/5/3
Fury vs. CMags won w/L112, 3/4/3
IW vs. Quicksilver won w/L70, 3/4/2
IMHB vs. Hulk won w/L250, 5/5/3
X-Pool vs. X-Force won w/L180, 5/1/5
4hor vs. Rags won w/L166, 4/4/1
DD vs. Squirrel Girl won w/L172, 3/4/1
Elektra vs. Blade won w/L131, 3/1/4
Ant-Man vs. Teen Jean won w/L100, 3/1/5
Star-Lord vs. Gamora won w/L150, 4/2/3
ProfX vs. Carnage won w/L220, 5/3/5
Kingpin vs. Luke Cage won w/L140, 4/3/4
Carnage vs. Doc Ock won w/L152, 5/0/1
Thing vs. HT won w/L147, 4/2/3
FalCap vs Captain Marvel won w/L152, 2/4/1
Teen Jean vs. Moonstone won L172, 4/4/3
Mr. Fantastic vs. Doom won L166, 1/4/4
Iceman vs. Teen Jean won w/L147, 3/3/3
Cyclops vs. IMHB won w/L152, 4/2/1
Rulk vs. Hulk won w/L250, 2/5/5
X-23 vs. Elektra won w/L130, 2/3/3
Ghost Rider vs. Galactus won w/L115, 1/1/3

atomzed

Thumbs up for the thread!

I did enjoy a large part of the 4* DDQ. Some were more interesting than others like IW vs QS, and Elektra vs Blade. Simply because there is a good dynamics between the 2.

Things I like to see improved:

1) better match up for certain characters. Falcap vs CM, and Starlord vs Gamora and Mr F vs Doom are very big hurdles to jump. You getting support characters facing good solo characters.

2) Allow one team up for the player. Allowing one team up provides more interesting strategy, and will allow support characters to shine better. Example: Mr F vs Doom. I can bring a Storm black TU to flood the board with attack tiles, which gives me a lot of tiles to heal.

You can lock the DP whales to prevent people from one shotting it. You shouldn't worry about MBW because giving players additional 5 turn is useless when they are using a low level char against a 5/5/5 level 270 opponent.

3) Reduce the level of the opponent according to the number of covers the player has. This may be controversial, as it is somewhat like scaling. But I think players with 3-5 covers should have a better shot in completing the 4* DDQ. Maybe cap the level difference between the player and opponent.

It has already been done, for Devil Dino vs SG (not max level), and Rulk vs Hulk (not a 5/5/5 hulk).

wymtime

I think the DPDQ has been well thought out. Sometimes hard sometimes easy, and sometimes brutal. Going forward I think a 5,5,3 level 222 match is more than appropriate.

Also with hard matches I have to mention XForce vs Cyclops. A 5,5,5 3* cyclops is better then most 4* with 2 stron nukes and he can feed himself red. We I'll all b reminded this week how hard this node really was.

I will be very interested to take on Galactus in 4 months if my GR gets some covers. I thought that match looked fun, but my low covered GR was too low to really attempt to take to 20k health

udonomefoo

I didn't beat Galactus on the last one, but I thought it was a nice puzzle-y change from the norm. That was cool, even though I got repeatedly whooped. (0/2/1 GR)

Phumade

wymtime wrote:

I will be very interested to take on Galactus in 4 months if my GR gets some covers. I thought that match looked fun, but my low covered GR was too low to really attempt to take to 20k health

GR was a really thoughtful match. If you had under 3 Black covers, you pretty much hoarded all black AP until the very last second to maximize PS damage. I really wish I could have replayed that node after I beat it.

whoami24601

I liked the different matches, but I really wish that there was dialogue in them.

A page from both the active and the AI character talking smack before the fight, then a gloat screen from the victor after, whoever it may be.

Four sentences per match. That'd be all that's needed.

madok

I'm not sure I agree with all the fights being well thought out and planned.

The Carnage vs. Doc is a great example. That was a match where people with zero black covers on their Carnage had a much easier time of it. Why should you be penalized for actually having covers for a character?

Cousin Simpson

whoami24601 wrote:

I liked the different matches, but I really wish that there was dialogue in them.

A page from both the active and the AI character talking smack before the fight, then a gloat screen from the victor after, whoever it may be.

Four sentences per match. That'd be all that's needed.

rkd80

Yes, some matches were fun and really stressed the importance of strategic thought. Others were complete **** and relied on nothing more than a good board.

It came down to those with well developed 4* rosters dominating and the rest of us losing more than half of the matches. Since the whole point is to grow the 4* roster, it makes little sense to make the matches winnable for those people who basically do not need the reward anyway.

For starters, all support characters should be removed from 1v1 fights. They are silly. Even the ProfX fight is laughable, because realistically speaking there are but a few characters he can beat in a 1v1 fight. I know most of us won that fight, but there was absolutely nothing strategic about it.

PeterGibbons316

rkd80 wrote:

Since the whole point is to grow the 4* roster, it makes little sense to make the matches winnable for those people who basically do not need the reward anyway.

I completely disagree.

Check out my roster in the post above. I have three 4*s cover maxed. Three. DDQ4 has added 22 covers to my roster and nearly all of them were put to good use.

rkd80

Uhm, that statement in no way proves anything whatsoever. Just because you were lucky and pulled useful LT tokens does not make the matches luck based and board dependent. In fact, I have no idea what in the world you are disagreeing with.

It is like the guy in the other thread stating that he pulled enough 5* and therefore the system is not broken. Yes it is, anecdotal evidence of luck does not negate our argument.

PeterGibbons316

rkd80 wrote:

Uhm, that statement in no way proves anything whatsoever. Just because you were lucky and pulled useful LT tokens does not make the matches luck based and board dependent. In fact, I have no idea what in the world you are disagreeing with.

It is like the guy in the other thread stating that he pulled enough 5* and therefore the system is not broken. Yes it is, anecdotal evidence of luck does not negate our argument.

You made a broad generalization that the only people capable of earning the reward don't need the reward. My anecdote proves your generalization to be false as I was capable of earning the reward (got "lucky" 19 times ) and also needed the reward (the vast majority of my 4/5* characters are undercovered.)

And even if you are delusional and refuse to acknowledge the skill component of this game (i.e. I wasn't capable, and just got lucky every single match), you are still wrong because the reward is a random token - not the specific cover from the required character. If you and your roster are only good enough to finish 3 of these battles then you earn 3 random 4/5* characters - odds are likely that they are covers you need.