SquishySquash wrote: Konman wrote: NorthernPolarity wrote: Balance changes are incoming in a couple of weeks, so you should expect rosters to be more diversified at that point. One of the reasons given for the Thor/Wolverine funbalancing was to encourage diversified teams, and that certainly hasn't happened to any great extent. Perhaps this round will be more effective. I dunno... It used to be C Storm, Thor, and Wolvie for nearly every fight. Now you see OBW replacing one of them. Actually, I've been pretty happy to get Mag Now boosted over the past couple tournaments as he works so well with my Spidey and is just fun to use. I had already been leveling him up and maxed him a couple days ago. I alternate him and GSBW in the PVP tourneys. I found CMags and Hulk work well together also. I'm giving Venom and IM40 another look too as Venom may be helpful depending on what the devs do to Spidey and I ran up against a high level team (100+) that included Venom and they jacked me real bad. I was surprised at how effective he was behind cover. IM40 helped Walkyourpath win the first Elite tourney, his battery power helps in PVE a lot (especially with OBW and M Storm) against goons, and he's pretty tanky. I also see a lot of people incorporating Patch, Punisher and Ares into their teams. So I think diversification is happening and the upcoming funbalance will probably push that even more.
Konman wrote: NorthernPolarity wrote: Balance changes are incoming in a couple of weeks, so you should expect rosters to be more diversified at that point. One of the reasons given for the Thor/Wolverine funbalancing was to encourage diversified teams, and that certainly hasn't happened to any great extent. Perhaps this round will be more effective.
NorthernPolarity wrote: Balance changes are incoming in a couple of weeks, so you should expect rosters to be more diversified at that point.
Konman wrote: Impulse wrote: Yeah, I'm sure they'll get right on changes to encourage players to have less rooster space. I don't think it encourages that behavior at all, and if it does, so what? No one ever uses even close to all the characters they have.
Impulse wrote: Yeah, I'm sure they'll get right on changes to encourage players to have less rooster space.
Impulse wrote: Konman wrote: Impulse wrote: Yeah, I'm sure they'll get right on changes to encourage players to have less rooster space. I don't think it encourages that behavior at all, and if it does, so what? No one ever uses even close to all the characters they have. . Rooster space is the steadiest HP sink for players. The more characters, the more spots you need. Sure, you don't need to collect dark widow or bagman. But you don't know what covers you're going to pull, so it behooves you to hang onto as many decent ones as possible to see who you can assemble. Retiring covers reduces the space you need to devote to collecting. Players need less spaces, less players buy HP to extend roosters. Thus, it'll never happen. If the size becomes a problem, it'd be more likely they offer narrower selections for recruit and heroic tokens.
Twysta wrote: Retiring ideas is literally the worst idea I've heard. While some characters can and will be deemed as "useless", some of these may still be peoples favorites in teh Marvel universe and to reduce the available characters just seems impractical. What about all the new players who start who can't get a said character because he's been "retired"? If that was one of his favorite characters in the Marvel universe how is he going to feel about that? Or what if their certain skillset was an ideal combination for their current squad? You can't just leave these characters in for players who already have them and not make them available for new players. This would definitely create an imbalance and you'd hear an AWFUL lot of complaints. The Marvel Universe has a very big diverse range of characters and mixing and matching these is half of the appeal of MPQ. They can't retire 1*'s either because of the way the prologue works and trying to introduce new players unless you want them to replace them with other one stars - in which would still produce the same problems but now you're just adding new characters to the game which aren't mostly going to be used either way and will serve to just clog up roster space for the "collector" players or who will just be equally ignored by more advanced players. It's more hassle than it's worth and I'm pretty sure would be a very unpopular decision. I can understand the sentiment behind it with roster space at a premium and finding covers being difficult enough as it is, but that's a driving factor in keeping you coming back right? To get more covers? If you already have everything you'd lose incentive to play (in most cases). I'm all in favor of adding more characters! But I definitely think they need to reduce the cost of roster space or have a ceiling price for it. At the very least be able to buy multiple slots for a reduced price (group rates anyone?).
However, new players have a diminishing chance of getting a needed/wanted cover with every new character that is added to the game. If the chance of a standard token dropping a 3* is under 3%, and there are an increasing number of 3* covers, the cover you really want is incredibly unlikely to appear.
Dayraven wrote: However, new players have a diminishing chance of getting a needed/wanted cover with every new character that is added to the game. If the chance of a standard token dropping a 3* is under 3%, and there are an increasing number of 3* covers, the cover you really want is incredibly unlikely to appear. True (and I'm finding the 2-star to 3-star transition already quite slow), but character retirement isn't the only lever that could be pulled here. The price of roster slots, the availability of high-level tokens and the probability of higher-level drops from low-level tokens could all be adjusted, and are all more likely to be viewed as benefits to the player than character retirement.
Eddiemon wrote: Yes you keep adding characters. No you don't retire any. There isn't any point. There also isn't any point in a limit, especially given that they create variants of the one hero and server storage space is cheap. If there come to be too many options to progress all they have to do is create different tokens or ways to spend tokens. E.g let you use a standard token to pull a hero or a villain, or some other subgroup so you can focus on building a team. Retiring characters reduces people's options and the amount people are likely to spend. Making the game easier for freeloaders isn't a valid objective. It is great when they force us to use characters, because it creates challenges. Daredevil for a minion fight means you basically have 2 active characters instead of 3. The game gets dull very quick if every battle is Patch, C Magneto and Spidey vs X. It also means that ou need to be good at the game and at strategy, and not just rely on a crutch team. While you feel Cap is never used, the devs stated that he is the most used 2 star according to their stats. Possibly because he is great against minions.
rowaasr13 wrote: TLDR: "I've got lots of covers and don't anyone else to have them so I'll be extra special snowflake!!" Please go funbalance yourself.
Il Palazzo wrote: This is already being addressed. New characters are given out like candies at their release, older ones got lightning rounds. 2* are relatively easy to get with a little patience and luck, as the drop rate from standard tokens is somewhat decent, and the tokens themselves are spammed extensively. 3* are more difficult to handle but the hero LR is one step in that direction. Now, if that Punisher jerk stopped appearing in half the events as reward (I think I sold WAY more Punishers than Bagmans), 3* distribution would look almost perfect Ditto for 2* if Cap was not spammed that much.