POLL: Should Championing Start at Max Level, or 13 Covers?

245

Comments

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This is going to benefit newer players way more than vets. Someone starting out, has no extra covers, or is finally getting max 2*s, they will have the biggest benefit, with the free 3* covers, hp, iso, etc... to use for roster spots and 3*s.. Us vets, we get to play catch up with all the characters we didn't max when we moved on to 4* and 5* chars. So I am glad to have a reason to level some of my 3*s again, been meaning to anyway for when they are pvp featured.

    Max level to champion sound perfect.. a champion in definition would be the best of the best.. not an under leveled grunt.
  • The Bob The
    The Bob The Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    simonsez wrote:
    I don't even understand what's being asked for. If you've intentionally softcapped your rosters, and the whole point of championing is to raise characters beyond their current max level, what exactly are you looking to do?

    Get benefits without corresponding costs?

    Sorry, sorry, I'll show myself out...
  • acescracked
    acescracked Posts: 1,197 Chairperson of the Boards
    jobob wrote:
    PeterGibbons316 wrote:
    It also combats soft-capping.
    I agree, but I guess I don't understand why we want to combat soft-capping in the first place. I see the financial benefit for D3, obviously, but how does it help the player base more than it hurts them?

    For some reason, some players have been lead to believe that softcapping is best when all it does is hinder your progression. It makes pve slightly easier while making PvP progression infinitely harder. That's why alot of newish players think PvP is so hard. Whenever a veteran player with a very robust and fully leveled roster wants pve t10 we can get it.

    Level your characters to the max and you won't look back. (Caveat is a 270 lvl 4* is not a huge improvement to the same 250 lvl 4*)
  • Tatercat
    Tatercat Posts: 930 Critical Contributor
    I've got concerns about this update (though I am hopeful), but requiring the the character to be max level and covers isn't one of them. That's smart.

    As for hurting soft cappers, I'm ambivalent about it. Soft capping IS necessary sometimes, I'm doing it right now with my growing 4* roster until I've got enough covers to safely take a few as a group above 200 lvl. But some abuse it, doing it across the board for their roster. But that's more a fault of the game structure itself, can't blame someone for taking advantage of the system. Maybe this will address that, I don't know. And from the comments here, it sounds like veteran soft-cappers could use a change of strategy, anyway.
  • TxMoose
    TxMoose Posts: 4,319 Chairperson of the Boards
    softcapping got the nerfhammer. but so did tiering like I do, so whatever. still not maxing out rags and punpun just so I can champ them.
  • thanos8587
    thanos8587 Posts: 653
    simonsez wrote:
    I don't even understand what's being asked for. If you've intentionally softcapped your rosters, and the whole point of championing is to raise characters beyond their current max level, what exactly are you looking to do?

    this makes alot of sense and i agree except for one point. championing is also meant to raise the rewards for excess covers beyond simply scrapping for 250, 500, 1000 iso. those people who softcapped at 120 or even worse at 94 are now left with the choice of leaving their rosters low for pve grinding ease or joining the rest of the world in enjoying increased rewards for championing.

    i look at championing as a reward for level capping your characters and i like the system as they intend to implent it. we still need to see the championing rewards per star class and character but it should clearly be superior to the sell all button for the puny iso amounts we get now especially for 3/4* characters. its still going to be forever before i champion a 4 star but i really dont care. this breathes some new life into the game.

    of course as levels go up and up games are going to take longer and longer. snooze
  • jobob
    jobob Posts: 680 Critical Contributor
    simonsez wrote:
    I don't even understand what's being asked for. If you've intentionally softcapped your rosters, and the whole point of championing is to raise characters beyond their current max level, what exactly are you looking to do?
    Get additional value out of unneeded covers.
  • Tatercat
    Tatercat Posts: 930 Critical Contributor
    TxMoose wrote:
    softcapping got the nerfhammer. but so did tiering like I do, so whatever. still not maxing out rags and punpun just so I can champ them.

    I'll champion Bagman or IW before I champion Rags. God help the player who's roster only leaves them THAT option.
  • jobob
    jobob Posts: 680 Critical Contributor
    The Bob The wrote:
    simonsez wrote:
    I don't even understand what's being asked for. If you've intentionally softcapped your rosters, and the whole point of championing is to raise characters beyond their current max level, what exactly are you looking to do?

    Get benefits without corresponding costs?

    Sorry, sorry, I'll show myself out...
    To an extent, sure, but D3 sets what the cost of each benefit is. If you have a level 250 13-cover 4*... is it THAT unreasonable to want to be able to use an extra cover for more than 1,000 ISO?
  • jobob
    jobob Posts: 680 Critical Contributor
    thanos8587 wrote:
    this makes alot of sense and i agree except for one point. championing is also meant to raise the rewards for excess covers beyond simply scrapping for 250, 500, 1000 iso. those people who softcapped at 120 or even worse at 94 are now left with the choice of leaving their rosters low for pve grinding ease or joining the rest of the world in enjoying increased rewards for championing.

    i look at championing as a reward for level capping your characters and i like the system as they intend to implent it. we still need to see the championing rewards per star class and character but it should clearly be superior to the sell all button for the puny iso amounts we get now especially for 3/4* characters. its still going to be forever before i champion a 4 star but i really dont care. this breathes some new life into the game.

    of course as levels go up and up games are going to take longer and longer. snooze
    Well said.
  • Magic
    Magic Posts: 1,199 Chairperson of the Boards
    MarvelMan wrote:
    Why not a system where it increases the max level possible without affecting the current level? I have no plan to max Beast or Dr (n)Oct at this time but it would be nice to be able to drop covers on them for future use if/when they get "fun" balanced. Make the iso necessary to get to 166 or 270 the same, then levels past that are gifted free. Seems the "best" of both worlds, and helps in a world where iso is in short supply.


    I agree 100%. It will kill me now that I have to sell the covers. I have 12 3* maxed leveled and all 40 max covered. That means that 28 can't be championed (they are anywere from 162 to 120 in terms of level). I will not have that sort of ISO ever icon_e_sad.gif So I will have to sell my potential champions away (well - the covers - I will still keep them all).

    The simple solution is - no expiry date on covers. I would be happy to keep them and level the heroes in my own pace. Oh well - not going to happen I guess.
  • The Bob The
    The Bob The Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    jobob wrote:
    The Bob The wrote:
    simonsez wrote:
    I don't even understand what's being asked for. If you've intentionally softcapped your rosters, and the whole point of championing is to raise characters beyond their current max level, what exactly are you looking to do?

    Get benefits without corresponding costs?

    Sorry, sorry, I'll show myself out...
    To an extent, sure, but D3 sets what the cost of each benefit is. If you have a level 250 13-cover 4*... is it THAT unreasonable to want to be able to use an extra cover for more than 1,000 ISO?

    It's not unreasonable to want that at all, it's just not how this particular system works. I like how straightforward it is (full disclosure: I have about 10 166s and will probably never max Ragnarok, Sentry, and their bottom-feeding brethren). A more complicated calculus would invite ridiculous amounts of quibbling, whereas with this I can look at my underleveled char and either say "nope" or get to leveling.
  • Natsufan01
    Natsufan01 Posts: 259 Mover and Shaker
    You left out the option of "No matter what I say, it's not going to change anything anyway." Really that should be included in all polls...
  • jobob
    jobob Posts: 680 Critical Contributor
    The Bob The wrote:
    jobob wrote:
    A more complicated calculus would invite ridiculous amounts of quibbling, whereas with this I can look at my underleveled char and either say "nope" or get to leveling.
    I understand your point, and I would be completely fine with the system as it is, if only there was a nice bump in sale price of 3* and 4* covers, to help make up that ISO to get you to the point of championing.
  • jobob
    jobob Posts: 680 Critical Contributor
    Tatercat wrote:
    As for hurting soft cappers, I'm ambivalent about it. Soft capping IS necessary sometimes, I'm doing it right now with my growing 4* roster until I've got enough covers to safely take a few as a group above 200 lvl. But some abuse it, doing it across the board for their roster. But that's more a fault of the game structure itself, can't blame someone for taking advantage of the system. Maybe this will address that, I don't know. And from the comments here, it sounds like veteran soft-cappers could use a change of strategy, anyway.
    I never saw doing it across the board as abusing it. I like the game, I like playing with a diverse cast of characters. I would rather have 40 120's than 4 166's, because I don't feel like having to play with the same team over and over. I guess I was doing it wrong.
  • The Bob The
    The Bob The Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    jobob wrote:
    The Bob The wrote:
    jobob wrote:
    A more complicated calculus would invite ridiculous amounts of quibbling, whereas with this I can look at my underleveled char and either say "nope" or get to leveling.
    I understand your point, and I would be completely fine with the system as it is, if only there was a nice bump in sale price of 3* and 4* covers, to help make up that ISO to get you to the point of championing.

    You have stolen my very words with your quotesmanship, sir! What sorcery is this?
  • The Bob The
    The Bob The Posts: 743 Critical Contributor
    edited January 2016
    jobob wrote:
    The Bob The wrote:
    jobob wrote:
    A more complicated calculus would invite ridiculous amounts of quibbling, whereas with this I can look at my underleveled char and either say "nope" or get to leveling.
    I understand your point, and I would be completely fine with the system as it is, if only there was a nice bump in sale price of 3* and 4* covers, to help make up that ISO to get you to the point of championing.

    You have stolen my very words with your quotesmanship, sir! What sorcery is this?

    EDIT: Beats me why this double-posted. More witchcraft!
  • thanos8587
    thanos8587 Posts: 653
    jobob wrote:
    Tatercat wrote:
    As for hurting soft cappers, I'm ambivalent about it. Soft capping IS necessary sometimes, I'm doing it right now with my growing 4* roster until I've got enough covers to safely take a few as a group above 200 lvl. But some abuse it, doing it across the board for their roster. But that's more a fault of the game structure itself, can't blame someone for taking advantage of the system. Maybe this will address that, I don't know. And from the comments here, it sounds like veteran soft-cappers could use a change of strategy, anyway.
    I never saw doing it across the board as abusing it. I like the game, I like playing with a diverse cast of characters. I would rather have 40 120's than 4 166's, because I don't feel like having to play with the same team over and over. I guess I was doing it wrong.

    no one would say youre doing it wrong, but if youve got 40 guys at 120 and 3 million iso stored because you want to grind pve easier, then no one here will feel bad that you cant champion your characters. thats the point of the poll i believe.
  • jobob
    jobob Posts: 680 Critical Contributor
    thanos8587 wrote:
    no one would say youre doing it wrong, but if youve got 40 guys at 120 and 3 million iso stored because you want to grind pve easier, then no one here will feel bad that you cant champion your characters. thats the point of the poll i believe.
    Nah, I have no ISO stored up.

    I made the poll... that wasn't my point. My point was that it would be nice if the people who spread out their ISO got a bump in benefits from duplicate covers as well, and not just the people who maxed one, then onto the next, the onto the next, etc.

    If you look at my roster in-game, you'll see that there's a ton of ISO sunk into it, but only a handful of maxed characters (I only have about 40k in the bank, definitely no 3 million, haha)
  • mpqr7
    mpqr7 Posts: 2,642 Chairperson of the Boards
    I never soft-capped. My OCD didn't allow me to leave good characters at less than 166. It was just the bad ones like beast and doc oc that I didn't feel the need to level up to 166, because they will never be scary on defense in pvp. I left them at 120 just so they would be good enough when featured in pvp. So all of my good 2*s and 3*s are all set. I just need to pay the initial championship fee, and then I'm good to go.

    My 4* game is much slower.. it takes a lot longer to level those bad boys and girls up! So it will take a long time for any of those to get championed, but I guess that just gives me more to look forward to, while I'm waiting for rngesus to deliver me more omls...

Categories