New Characters below 4*s

SpecSpecter

Now for all I know this sort of thing has been answered plenty of times in the past, but for me it's something I never really understood.
Why stop making 3* characters?

Part of it I guess I understand, MPQ wants to focus on players in the long game and 3*s and below wouldn't offer players in the 4*-5* range much if any incentive.
For me though a lot of the fun of this game comes from seeing the new characters as well as getting the chance to use said new characters. I would consider myself low in the 3*-4* transition range and while I'm getting close to the point of usable 4*s my reaction to new 4*s typically is "Oh, another character I probably will never get to use".

Not just 3*s though, even if I wouldn't necessarily use them I would love to see new 2*s and 1*s too.
I suppose at the heart of this is character availability. There are so many characters I want to see in the game that aren't in it but frankly many of them I just really can't see as 4*s or 5*, but that fact I think doesn't mean they should be excluded from the game all together..

Mawtful

The primary method of distribution is Token RNG. The 40 characters in the 3* tier mean that already the chances of getting a specific cover are limited. And it's a topic that the devs tend to avoid because it's fairly difficult to discuss without mentioning the fact that the distribution balance is designed around people spending big but ultimately "losing" on average.

In the past we were told that the devs didn't want to split the contents of Tokens but now they're singing a different song with Classic & Latest Legendary Tokens. Of course, "Say one thing, but do another" may very well be Demiurge's motto based on past occurences (correct me if I'm wrong).

CNash

The problem with adding new characters (and one that, frankly, Demiurge have painted themselves into a corner with) is that it extends the lower tier gameplay. Every new character added to an existing tier adds 3 more covers that could be pulled from a given token, reducing the odds that 2* and 3* players will pull the cover they need to progress. The last thing the metagame needs is to be slowed down more than it already has been.

Quebbster

Mawtful wrote:

The primary method of distribution is Token RNG. The 40 characters in the 3* tier mean that already the chances of getting a specific cover are limited. And it's a topic that the devs tend to avoid because it's fairly difficult to discuss without mentioning the fact that the distribution balance is designed around people spending big but ultimately "losing" on average.

In the past we were told that the devs didn't want to split the contents of Tokens but now they're singing a different song with Classic & Latest Legendary Tokens. Of course, "Say one thing, but do another" may very well be Demiurge's motto based on past occurences (correct me if I'm wrong).

To be fair, they did try taking some Three-stars out of token rotation. Didn't work out too well in the long run as it just meant more and more characters were unavailable.
It will definitely be interesting to see what happens to the legendary tokens when the seventh five-star is introduced though.
Personally, I would have been happy to see Howard the Duck as a Three-star since his covers will be rare. That would have given us a decent chance to cover him in the short time he is supposed to be available.

SpecSpecter

Mawtful wrote:

The primary method of distribution is Token RNG. The 40 characters in the 3* tier mean that already the chances of getting a specific cover are limited. And it's a topic that the devs tend to avoid because it's fairly difficult to discuss without mentioning the fact that the distribution balance is designed around people spending big but ultimately "losing" on average.

In the past we were told that the devs didn't want to split the contents of Tokens but now they're singing a different song with Classic & Latest Legendary Tokens. Of course, "Say one thing, but do another" may very well be Demiurge's motto based on past occurences (correct me if I'm wrong).

Heck, if they needed a dividing line it probably would be easy to take a page out of Adventure Time Puzzle Quest's book and have 'Hero' tokens and 'Villain' tokens.
What? You mean those numbers wouldn't be equal? Sounds like a good opportunity to add in some new characters then.

Not that I expect something like this any time soon I probably should add.

Quebbster

SpecSpecter wrote:

Mawtful wrote:

The primary method of distribution is Token RNG. The 40 characters in the 3* tier mean that already the chances of getting a specific cover are limited. And it's a topic that the devs tend to avoid because it's fairly difficult to discuss without mentioning the fact that the distribution balance is designed around people spending big but ultimately "losing" on average.

In the past we were told that the devs didn't want to split the contents of Tokens but now they're singing a different song with Classic & Latest Legendary Tokens. Of course, "Say one thing, but do another" may very well be Demiurge's motto based on past occurences (correct me if I'm wrong).

Heck, if they needed a dividing line it probably would be easy to take a page out of Adventure Time Puzzle Quest's book and have 'Hero' tokens and 'Villain' tokens.
What? You mean those numbers wouldn't be equal? Sounds like a good opportunity to add in some new characters then.

Not that I expect something like this any time soon I probably should add.

I Think metrics show the users are less interested in villains, which is why there are less villain releases.

SpecSpecter

It was less of an active suggestion and more of making a point it wouldn't be that hard to implement. I mean, I find it hard to believe it would be something that it would be something the player base would really complain much about (especially if they went with the split token option to increase odds), or at least no more then, say, how they complain about new 4*s already...

But even if 3*s are out of the question, what about 2*s and 1*s? Even if the probability on them drop 1) Most of the older playerbase would just be selling them for regardless if they are new or not and 2) both 2*s and 1*s are easy enough to get that even if spesific character odds drop getting them still won't be much of a challenge. Both could use more of a variety in any case.

Bowgentle

Why would they spend development time on chars that don't make them any money?

Anything below 4*s is way too easy to get, so they won't sell any packs.

ammenell

dont think they spend much time developing a new char - all the mechanics are there already, just slap together a few graphics, throw darts at a wall for the covers and there you go

if the new character uses a new mechanic like GG, it apparently it is bugged and the patch which removes that bug will come with its very own bugs.

they dont even test.

otherwise, 3*s dont bring money, only 4*s and 5*s do.

Felessa

Oh, I'm one for sure that would love that new 2*s and 3*s were added to the game ! Having almost two years of MPQ, I consider myself a casual player, and I have all characters I wanted (3x 1*s, 9x 2*s, 34x 3*s). The fact is, for me, 4*s and 5*s are really boring... I have many sitting between 1-3 covers... they are just very difficult to cover (my only sources are the daily reward or luck token pulls, so...)

Another thing is: you have color schemes missing on the inferior tiers: like a 2* , or a 3* . At least, the 3* tier should have ALL color combinations...

Lastly, if they can't introduce new chars at low tiers because of the number of them, like 3*s, so why not "promote" some of the old ones to the 4 tier? It's sad to see powerful gyus like Storm and Magneto fated to exist only up to the 3* land

mohio

Its funny that I just saw this thread. I literally am just now having a conversation with alliance mates who are saying they aren't excited by new 4* releases anymore because now there are 5* and their usefulness is nearly non-existent. Even without a usable 5* I am kind of in agreement. I have all of the "top-tier" 4* championed and am working on maxing others in the top 10 while I collect enough covers to make a 5* usable. What incentive is there for me to try and collect (and spend the iso to level) a new 4*? They will get a clash of titans, which is about the only reason to do it. There is no 4* PvP so I will never be forced to use the character. And I can get by with an unleveled 4* in PvE on required missions or just skip them altogether if it's really an issue.

tl;dr - Funny post about 3*, but new 4* are barely relevant right now, so there's no way they should be coming out with any new 3* or less. Devs need to do some work to make new 4* worth collecting and leveling.

SnowcaTT

Considering 4*'s barely matter anymore, and even boosted 4*'s can't compete with 5*'s of the same level...I'm surprised they are even making 4*'s anymore.

I know they promote more characters as "keeping players interested"...but does a new 4* make anyone really excited? The whales are way past that. The non-whales won't have it covered for a year, since a new character dilutes the pool further. I guess the only one it excites is the whales that buy it week one so they can win the PVE and PVP that follow it....but then I question why those players care to take first anymore?

Honestly, the only thing new characters do is make everyone have another roster slot, which costs most for the new players who can't afford them. Which is why they -should- keep adding 2*'s and 3*'s. I'd love to see more of them, three 2*'s for each 3* so you can champ your 3*'s, three 3*'s for each 4* so you can champ into your 4*'s...and so on.

But even more, I'd like to see no more than one character a month/season, and other new additions that actually excite the user-base instead.

TxMoose

as much as I don't think we need any more 3s or 2s, if it meant slotting a new 2*/3* where a 4* would be released, I'd be aok with a character that would ultimately cost me less resources in the long-run. I don't think it will happen, but I'd be for it - only if it replaced a 4* release slot.

SpecSpecter

Felessa wrote:

Lastly, if they can't introduce new chars at low tiers because of the number of them, like 3*s, so why not "promote" some of the old ones to the 4 tier? It's sad to see powerful gyus like Storm and Magneto fated to exist only up to the 3* land

This is one of the peeves I have with how we only get only 4*+ anymore if only from a characterization standpoint. It just really bugs me that some characters are doomed to exist only on a 'lower' tier simply because they had the misfortune of being popular and relevant before power creep set in while what 4*s get made are characters far from 'legendary' and are only 4*s because MPQ wanted to include them but refused to make anything less.
Stuff like how the Human Torch is slighted by being the only 3* core FF member and likewise with Kamala Khan among the All-New Avengers (minus Iron Man I guess depending how you think about it). Or how people like Captain Marvel and Black Panther are due to have upcoming solo movies but we're more likely to see their villains introduced at a 4* level then them because they already 'were done'
All this really is semantics I guess and has literally nothing on game play, but that's the kinds of thing that get me invested.

Actually I might as well ask, just how many people actually care which characters are at which level or rather just care if they are useful mechanically or not? Does it matter to most of the player base that Electra is a 4* and Daredevil is a mere 3* or that if we ever get a Drax he will be 4* despite Gamora and Rocket/Groot being 3*s, regardless of their abilities?

hopper1979

I would be all for this, if and only if, they reduced the cost of slots. Until then heck no it is too expensive to buy slots, and I doubt they want to reduce the cost of them.

TLCstormz

Agent Carter
Agent 43
Phil Colulson
Ming Na
Traitorous Guy
Maria Hill
Jubilee

Easily, all of these could be 1, 2, 3 *s.

SpecSpecter

TLCstormz wrote:

Agent Carter
Agent 43
Phil Colulson
Ming Na
Traitorous Guy
Maria Hill
Jubilee

Easily, all of these could be 1, 2, 3 *s.

Not to mention the endless supply on Inhumans they have yet to tap into. But then the issue never really was about character availability but rather of mechanics and profit...

carrion_pigeons

So...

4*s don't matter, and 4*s are the primary source of the Iso drought. Sounds like the problems solve each other.

brb gonna go reclaim 15 roster slots

Unknown

SpecSpecter wrote:

TLCstormz wrote:

Agent Carter
Agent 43
Phil Colulson
Ming Na
Traitorous Guy
Maria Hill
Jubilee

Easily, all of these could be 1, 2, 3 *s.

Not to mention the endless supply on Inhumans they have yet to tap into. But then the issue never really was about character availability but rather of mechanics and profit...

We got a broken Quake, remember?

Spiritclaw

carrion pigeons wrote:

So...

4*s don't matter, and 4*s are the primary source of the Iso drought. Sounds like the problems solve each other.

brb gonna go reclaim 15 roster slots

...and that's why the current matchmaking system is undesirable. Selling your top tier characters to become more competitive shouldn't work, but it probably would.

SpecSpecter

downsouthman1 wrote:

SpecSpecter wrote:

Not to mention the endless supply on Inhumans they have yet to tap into. But then the issue never really was about character availability but rather of mechanics and profit...

We got a broken Quake, remember?

I mean Inhumans that actually pertain to the Inhuman series. I find it odd that considering how much Marvel is trying to push Inhuman relevence in the comics that that hasn't really even been touched on in this game yet, not even with the big ones that been around forever like Medusa or Black Bolt, but that's almost a whole other conversation. Quake (along with Kamala) is/are Inhumans yes but largely are connected with or are associated with their own things which makes their Inhuman(...ness?) something of a trivial footnote.