Impossible 5*

Philly79

And I would like to say that I have a very strong suspicion that the %'s are just for show and have no actual significance on drop rates, it is pure luck like the one time I went 3/5 5*'s or there is this guy I know that once went 7/7...how could that be possible if the low percentages reset with each "roll of the dice"? I am calling shenanigans!

Unknown

Raffoon wrote:

Expect an announcement and apology in 4 more months.

You mean an announcement that the reduced rate was always working as intended?

Raffoon

avs962 wrote:

Just wanted to pop back in and say again that luck-based progression is the dumbest thing that could exist in a game. Seriously. . . just why?

Because the dog in your signature is actually a portrait of the dev team.

Malenkov wrote:

You mean an announcement that the reduced rate was always working as intended?

Indeed. It seems that the 10% number was a miscommunication. It was never intended to be that high.

By the way, when they do actually see fit to respond to this problem in a few months, I expect the response to be something along the lines of "Guys, 5*s are supposed to be hard to get". They'll completely ignore the actual issue that 2 people pulling the exact same amount of tokens can wind up with wildly different results.For instance, 2 people each pulling 200 tokens and 1 person getting 2 5*s while another gets 30.

mpqr7

For those keeping track, this morning I struggled to make it to 1300. And I also struggled to champion another 3*.

Both LTs from those gave me useless covers of non-championed 4*s.

I'm on the brink of quitting this game. It's getting to be a huge pain to do the same thing over and over again, with no result. There's nothing to look forward to. Now that 5*s are the new meta, there's no excitement in building and using new 4*s. And how could I even try to get excited about them when the LTs don't even give me useful covers??? Just repeats of covers of which I already have five, or non-champed fully-covered characters.

Raffoon

So when are they going to acknowledge this massive problem that's been present since day 1 of 5*s?

I mean.... they haven't even said that they recognize there's a problem.

avs962

Raffoon wrote:

So when are they going to acknowledge this massive problem that's been present since day 1 of 5*s?

I mean.... they haven't even said that they recognize there's a problem.

They're obviously too busy dealing with the really important issues in the game, like the groundbreaking change that is the Vision fix. They don't have time for such trivial matters when they need to do such a massive overhaul of his powers. . .

fight4thedream

Raffoon wrote:

avs962 wrote:

Just wanted to pop back in and say again that luck-based progression is the dumbest thing that could exist in a game. Seriously. . . just why?

Because the dog in your signature is actually a portrait of the dev team.

Malenkov wrote:

You mean an announcement that the reduced rate was always working as intended?

Indeed. It seems that the 10% number was a miscommunication. It was never intended to be that high.

By the way, when they do actually see fit to respond to this problem in a few months, I expect the response to be something along the lines of "Guys, 5*s are supposed to be hard to get". They'll completely ignore the actual issue that 2 people pulling the exact same amount of tokens can wind up with wildly different results.For instance, 2 people each pulling 200 tokens and 1 person getting 2 5*s while another gets 30.

Issuing Raffoon a warning for insulting the development team as it violates rule 6: (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4). I understand the frustration with the design decisions the development team has made and the lack of communication, and I encourage members to point out the problems with those decisions but taking cheap shots like this adds nothing to your argument and is counterproductive. If you truly wish for an open dialogue with the development team, it is best that you not lose your sense of decency and exercise a degree of restraint in your criticism. Cheap insults like this one will not be tolerated.

Raffoon

fight4thedream wrote:

Raffoon wrote:

avs962 wrote:

Just wanted to pop back in and say again that luck-based progression is the dumbest thing that could exist in a game. Seriously. . . just why?

Because the dog in your signature is actually a portrait of the dev team.

Malenkov wrote:

You mean an announcement that the reduced rate was always working as intended?

Indeed. It seems that the 10% number was a miscommunication. It was never intended to be that high.

By the way, when they do actually see fit to respond to this problem in a few months, I expect the response to be something along the lines of "Guys, 5*s are supposed to be hard to get". They'll completely ignore the actual issue that 2 people pulling the exact same amount of tokens can wind up with wildly different results.For instance, 2 people each pulling 200 tokens and 1 person getting 2 5*s while another gets 30.

Issuing Raffoon a warning for insulting the development team as it violates rule 6: (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4). I understand the frustration with the design decisions the development team has made and the lack of communication, and I encourage members to point out the problems with those decisions but taking cheap shots like this adds nothing to your argument and is counterproductive. If you truly wish for an open dialogue with the development team, it is best that you not lose your sense of decency and exercise a degree of restraint in your criticism. Cheap insults like this one will not be tolerated.

Look, I'm sorry if it hurts their self esteem for me to say that they don't know what they're doing. I've been playing this game since close to the start, and I've seen basically all of the decisions that they made. It's an opinion that I have.

Would it be less insulting if I just said that I don't think they know what they're doing? Or is it the reference to the funny science dog that's offensive?

I've made a lot of posts on this board. At the beginning, they tended to be more positive. As bad decisions piled up, I certainly became less hopeful, though.

Despite a gradual waning of my hope, I've still made efforts to post constructive suggestions, ideas, and feedback. I think IceIX replied to one once, saying that they might look into it after anniversary (they didn't). Recently, whenever I make a constructive suggestion, it gets shunted away into a forum that gets 1/10 the views and replies of General Discussion.

The thing is, those constructive suggestions don't make any difference. So if constructive suggestions and dialogue aren't going to be encouraged, then why bother with it?

Edit: I'll also add that I'm not even protesting the warning here. But if somewhere around 1/100 or 1/50 of my posts takes a slightly nasty turn after banging my head against a figurative wall for 2 years, then I'm not going to regret that either.

Unknown

fight4thedream wrote:

Issuing Raffoon a warning for insulting the development team as it violates rule 6: (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4).

I was going to write up a thing supporting not only Raffoon's right to critique but the content of that criticism, but instead I'll just say this:

Rule 6 advises us to "Treat your fellow users kindly." How can criticism of the developers violate this rule if they do not participate in this forum?

optimus2861

Do you suppose it's possible that the developers didn't actually intend for 5* to be purchasable (isn't that what Ice initially said?), but got overruled by the suits? The suits would have very well known that no matter how many thousands of dollars it would cost, someone out there, maybe even more than one someone, would spend whatever it took to get that 450 Surfer. Then the 550 OML. It's a huge short-term revenue boost, but utterly destroys the long-term competitiveness in the game (which was only hanging on by a thread anyway). But if the suits intend to shut the game down in the next 6-12 months, what do they care about long-term competitive balance? Just keep pumping 5* out there, watch the whales go crazy buying 40-packs to get them, rake in the $$$ until that stops being effective, then turn out the lights.

Unknown

optimus2861 wrote:

Do you suppose it's possible that the developers didn't actually intend for 5* to be purchasable (isn't that what Ice initially said?), but got overruled by the suits? The suits would have very well known that no matter how many thousands of dollars it would cost, someone out there, maybe even more than one someone, would spend whatever it took to get that 450 Surfer. Then the 550 OML. It's a huge short-term revenue boost, but utterly destroys the long-term competitiveness in the game (which was only hanging on by a thread anyway). But if the suits intend to shut the game down in the next 6-12 months, what do they care about long-term competitive balance? Just keep pumping 5* out there, watch the whales go crazy buying 40-packs to get them, rake in the $$$ until that stops being effective, then turn out the lights.

There's more context to this than 5*s. The last few months also saw the major shift in HP utility, which was reasonably framed as a way to help shore up the health of the game ecosystem (as tinykitty as the announce was handled, with no warning and coming a few weeks after holiday sales). If we're being *really* cynical, this might be an attempt to try to scale down the crazy 5* whaling to the 4* tier. But that interpretation seems pretty far-fetched. Gwen's PVE was one of the most competitive that I've played in and I can imagine that plenty of people would have dropped hp on covers for her. With my post-sale hp glut, I bought out the Rulk and 4Clops covers I had outstanding. That's gotta be a modest revenue stream that they're giving up there. So I'm not willing to jump onto the "Last Days of MPQ" conspiracy theory yet.

The fact that you can actually whale out a 5* is a bit irrelevant to the fundamental problems of random distribution. The game has always let you substitute money for effort through any number of means; in this case, the criticisms of random distribution apply to whales as well.

fight4thedream

First to clarify:

The warning was for the reference to the dog image. It has nothing to do with the content of Raffoon's critique. I apologize if that was not clear. But hopefully this matter can help elucidate what is acceptable and what is not acceptable when it comes to criticism on the forum, either of the development team or your fellow forum members. There are two parts to Raffoon's post: the first part basically calling the development team "incompetent dogs" (the insult that got him a warning) and the second part actually providing his insight into the matter. What purpose does his insult serve? Does it strengthen his position? Does it help his cause?

Let's be honest here. It doesn't. It comes off as childish and immature. Furthermore, it lessens the likelihood of a dev taking the time to post here on the forum, an issue Raffoon himself has publicly stated he would like to see improved. This is why I ask for people to take measure in how they present their feedback. Adding insults to your posts is counterproductive if your goal is to encourage better communication between the development team and the forum community. It is also against the forum rules because it does nothing but breed toxicity and negative feelings.

Now with that said, on a more personal note and in keeping with the topic of this thread, I get the frustration with both the 5* system and the lack of communication. Apparently, from a business point of view, leaving 5* to random chance with tokens or CP that can be acquired through a purchasing "loophole" (let's not forget that LTs were originally presented as being non-purchasable) has been a boon, but from a gameplay perspective it has totally thrown the balance of the game and has devalued the end-game user experience. If I ever find the time to get around to it, there is a post baking in my mind regarding problems with the overall design structure and philosophy of this game that the 5* tier exposes and exacerbates but for our purposes leaving the final reward tier entirely to chance was a horrible decision from a gameplay perspective.

As for the lack of communication from the development team, Raffoon you are not the only one who has tried providing positive and constructive feedback. None of my posts, or even the letter I wrote summarizing all of the complaints of the forum, have ever been responded to by a member on the development team. 3* Spider-Man still remains a magic healing man; they even gave Spider-Gwen that meaningless healing jam ability which competes with TAHulk's Hot Dog Stand for worse 4* ability since she can't even heal herself. They still haven't provided an overarching narrative to the game, tiers for PvP or created a new game mode. But in none of my posts will you find me hurling insults at the development team.

Why? Because I understand that they are people, just like you and me, and that they work hard and have their own issues that they have to deal with. It would be awesome if they could shed light on the vision they have for the game; to explain some of their most recent decisions including the champion system and 5* tier and where they see the game going. But at the end of the day, despite what I consider to be some of its glaring flaws, as long as I am enjoying the game that's all that matters. When time permits, I will continue to bring up issues that I feel are important to improving the game for both myself and hopefully others but in a manner that still shows appreciation and respect to the development team that has brought me a game that I have enjoyed for 2 + years. It is my hope that others will do the same.

Raffoon

Eh, you looked at it as "incompetent dogs", I looked at it as "goofy critter playing with a chemistry set he doesn't know how to use"

It's the difference between calling a picture of Deadpool a mass-murdering lunatic, or a zany action hero.

In any case, the point about avoiding personal insults is taken, and I'll strive to avoid them in the future. (Despite the fact that I feel the responsibility for the game's design and features do fall squarely on the development team's shoulders, meaning that shortfalls in those regards are a direct result of their level of effectiveness.)

On topic, and in the spirit of aiming criticism at ideas instead of people: I feel that the idea of distributing the final tier of competitive rewards through a completely luck based system is of a similar quality to the scientific mixtures that goofy canine would cook up in his lab. It seems there's not too much disagreement about that in the thread.

mpqr7

There needs to be an absolute lower limit on how many LTs you can open without getting a 5*. It's very frustrating to work my butt off on all these events and championing and not win anything useful from it. I'm getting absolutely nowhere.

mmrosek

Their lack of acknowledgement that Luck based progression sucks for the player has caused me to take a step back (used to do 1300+ every event, now just when I feel like it...a couple times a season).

I guess if they actually acknowledged it and said they don't plan to change, I would finally quit...but the silence will drive me there eventually.

TheOncomingStorm

Since i reinstalled, If I had to guess, my rate is around 20% if you include 2 5* bagman covers. I've gotten 3 oml, 2 phoenix, and 2 bss. Actually, it may be over 20%.

I'd guess other people are not sacrificing enough puppies.

Kittens don't work. Nonnel will just meme you to death of you try that.

P.S. No puppies were actually harmed in the drawing of my tokens.

cyineedsn

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

Since i reinstalled, If I had to guess, my rate is around 20% if you include 2 5* bagman covers. I've gotten 3 oml, 2 phoenix, and 2 bss. Actually, it may be over 20%.

I'd guess other people are not sacrificing enough puppies.

Kittens don't work. Nonnel will just meme you to death of you try that.

P.S. No puppies were actually harmed in the drawing of my tokens.

I demand proof of safe puppies

TheOncomingStorm

cyineedsn wrote:

TheOncomingStorm wrote:

Since i reinstalled, If I had to guess, my rate is around 20% if you include 2 5* bagman covers. I've gotten 3 oml, 2 phoenix, and 2 bss. Actually, it may be over 20%.

I'd guess other people are not sacrificing enough puppies.

Kittens don't work. Nonnel will just meme you to death of you try that.

P.S. No puppies were actually harmed in the drawing of my tokens.

I demand proof of safe puppies

Sheesh. You sound just like all my neighbors whose puppies ran away.

Clyve

Can I ask if there's a consensus better idea to propose? Just thinking about it, if you made the system entirely effort-based (like super-high progression or placement reward), you'd have an issue of the "rich getting richer". If the system is too random (like many complain that it is now), then folks that put in a lot of effort may feel under-rewarded. I think what they've implemented actually addresses a lot of these issues. While there is a lot of luck involved, it is mitigated by the fact that those that do put in a lot of effort get more chances at 5*s (and get more 4* covers that they can champ to gain even more LTs), and if anyone doesn't want to leave it to chance, they can pay CP for a 5* cover (with the requirement of having one of those covers already).

I'm reminded a bit of Diablo 2 in that drops were quite random, and the high end drops had minuscule odds of happening, but if you were a committed player, you would continuously go on loot runs so that eventually you would get what you were looking for. That system, of course, isn't perfect, so for Diablo 3 they improve your "luck" based on the amount of time you've played since your last Legendary drop.

Perhaps an analog solution would be for any LT that is opened that doesn't provide a 5* to give some amount of currency that could be used to purchase a 5* cover. They would probably want to put some stipulations on its use (maybe the price of a cover would increase based on how many covers you already have for that character or something) and they might want to provide different outlets for spending that currency. I suppose, alternatively, they could just give CP as this currency, maybe tweaking how it's spent (or at least reducing the price of a 5* cover from 720CP).

Anyway, I'm curious what people are actually looking for as a solution, because I don't think super-high progression or placement rewards as the only option are a good idea.

simonsez

Clyve wrote:

Can I ask if there's a consensus better idea to propose?

It's hard to get consensus on anything around here, but 5*s should never have been random. They should've been awarded via something like a CP counter. Hit 100 (or whatever) and trade them in for a 5* cover. Or if they insist on sticking with tokens, they should've been drawn from a no-reset vault.