Topics for Brigby

thisone

Brigby wrote:

Hey everyone. I'm back again.

So upon further inspection, it seems to me like there are numerous issues that stem from one root cause: 5* Pulls
It seems like a more reliable method to pull 5* covers has been a general desire. Hypothetically if a reliable method was implemented, in your opinions, would the following analysis be correct?

If a more reliable method of acquiring 5* covers is implemented, the low probability is no longer an issue.
Since low probability is no longer an issue, having new heroes added so quickly that cause the probability to lower no longer becomes an issue.
On top of that, since there are now more players with 5* heroes, there are more players in the PVP pool for 5* tier, therefore higher chance of encountering a new opponent.
Not only that, scaling no longer becomes an issue, because you can reliably work towards strengthening 5* heroes to combat the increased difficulty.

If this analysis is true, then what kind of methods do you feel would offer a sufficient enough solution?

(Keep in mind this is all a hypothetical, brainstorm discussion for information purposes)

1. Colourless covers
2. A new max progression in story mode. 7 day event only.
3. New max progression in shield sim.

5* should be hard to obtain still, so I don't think handing them out every event is the way to go.

fmftint

The biggest issue with 5☆ covers imo is acquiring 6 in any color. Latest or Classic shouldn't matter, NO 5☆ cover should be wasted

Tromb2ch2

The biggest reason that scaling is a problem is because they went
2* base level 15
3* base level 40
4* base level 70
5* base level 255
The jump was just too high! With the enemies scaling to your level it makes it so everything else (besides 5*) not really matter.
If anything 5* should have been a base 100-125. But when you bring a lot of 2* enemies up 400+ levels more than what they were supposed to cap at it leads to wonkey numbers.

Roguewookie26

While i can understand your reasoning behind the logic for the 5*s, that is more just fixing a symptom of a larger problem. It wont do anything to help players who arent in the 4-5* transition and could hurt players with scaling that are at 3* or below.

That said i am in my 4 -5 transition. And 5* are rare and very valuable for me at this point i dont have a single 5* fully covered or even close. So when i pulled my 6th green black bolt cover this morning it was not very fun. Especially when you consider that the last 6 5* i have pulled from latest legends have all been green black bolt covers. Out of 9 possible covers in a random system the odds of that are astronomical but this is the very thing that seems to happen in the game all the time.

To your point on how though, maybe make a seperate legendary token for each 5* so we can choose which one we want to go after. With a higher pull percentage (maybe 15 or 20%) for 25 cp. Much like they have done with the past several new release 5*. But there should be a way to switch out an unusable cover for a different cover of the same character if its maxed.

dsds

Brigby wrote:

Hey everyone. I'm back again.

So upon further inspection, it seems to me like there are numerous issues that stem from one root cause: 5* Pulls
It seems like a more reliable method to pull 5* covers has been a general desire. Hypothetically if a reliable method was implemented, in your opinions, would the following analysis be correct?

If a more reliable method of acquiring 5* covers is implemented, the low probability is no longer an issue.
Since low probability is no longer an issue, having new heroes added so quickly that cause the probability to lower no longer becomes an issue.
On top of that, since there are now more players with 5* heroes, there are more players in the PVP pool for 5* tier, therefore higher chance of encountering a new opponent.
Not only that, scaling no longer becomes an issue, because you can reliably work towards strengthening 5* heroes to combat the increased difficulty.

If this analysis is true, then what kind of methods do you feel would offer a sufficient enough solution?

(Keep in mind this is all a hypothetical, brainstorm discussion for information purposes)

Just make a new token for 5* only draws. make it more expensive like
100cp and be done with it. That way at least we know at 5 times the cost we are guaranteed a 5* compared with what it is now where you are not even guaranteed a 5* when you use 8 LTs. It's not the duplicate 5* that are the problem. It's that 5* are so rare, so duplicate 5* are very painful.

More 5* rosters to increase shield rank. Cost of a 5* would still stay high but has reasonable rng. Also the LTs will still give people a chance at 5* but mostly will be a 4* token draw.

Ducky

Brigby wrote:

Not only that, scaling no longer becomes an issue, because you can reliably work towards strengthening 5* heroes to combat the increased difficulty.

Scaling is still a huge issue because characters scale exponentially. After a certain point they become so crushingly strong that even with 5*s, you die in 2-3 turns if you're lucky. Scaling at the top end needs a complete redesign or they need to tweak the scaling logarithm to flatten out the curve a bit.

Phumade

DuckyV wrote:

Brigby wrote:

Not only that, scaling no longer becomes an issue, because you can reliably work towards strengthening 5* heroes to combat the increased difficulty.

Scaling is still a huge issue because characters scale exponentially. After a certain point they become so crushingly strong that even with 5*s, you die in 2-3 turns if you're lucky. Scaling at the top end needs a complete redesign or they need to tweak the scaling logarithm to flatten out the curve a bit.

TaT Business Partners: Hood cMags @450

cMags blue hits for 26K!!! His powers are so cheap that you deny blue all day and pray you luck into some other ap to fire your powers

PVE final grind is basically a 90m shield hop. You start with 4x12 CCs mid meal of clubbying baby seal practice and finish off with a 3X450 clear of a 4* a-team. Think about it. An avg shield hop is 3 matches of a team thats ideally 200 levels below your a-team with hopefully 1 of them a full rarity level below your team.

firethorne

thisone wrote:

[
2. A new max progression in story mode. 7 day event only.

Speaking of seven day events, that's another minor annoyance effort vs rewards issue.

A 3 day event gives 25 cp for 4 clears each day.
A 7 day event gives 25 cp for 4 clears each day.
144 more matches for the same reward.

firethorne

Brigby wrote:

Hey everyone. I'm back again.

If a more reliable method of acquiring 5* covers is implemented, the low probability is no longer an issue.
Since low probability is no longer an issue, having new heroes added so quickly that cause the probability to lower no longer becomes an issue.

True and true.

On top of that, since there are now more players with 5* heroes, there are more players in the PVP pool for 5* tier, therefore higher chance of encountering a new opponent.

Not necessarily true. In PvP, this is as much a function of shields and available players at and above your point range. The higher you climb, the more incentive there is to shield and remove yourself from targeting. So, finding fewer and fewer targets as you climb is almost certain as a function of available opponents shielding to preserve their points.

Not only that, scaling no longer becomes an issue, because you can reliably work towards strengthening 5* heroes to combat the increased difficulty.

In theory, but this is more conditional. There needs to be a bit of consideration if the opponent scales for an appropriate challenge. A recent example is Kaecillius. Here, abilities, specifically tile swapping, were of greater benefit than overall health and damage. So, when he was scaled to 5* levels, he was significantly more difficult because good board shakers like Loki and Quicksilver would get killed in one shot. Analogues to such skills in 5* land simply don't exist.

alphabeta

dsds wrote:

Brigby wrote:

Hey everyone. I'm back again.

So upon further inspection, it seems to me like there are numerous issues that stem from one root cause: 5* Pulls
It seems like a more reliable method to pull 5* covers has been a general desire. Hypothetically if a reliable method was implemented, in your opinions, would the following analysis be correct?

If a more reliable method of acquiring 5* covers is implemented, the low probability is no longer an issue.
Since low probability is no longer an issue, having new heroes added so quickly that cause the probability to lower no longer becomes an issue.
On top of that, since there are now more players with 5* heroes, there are more players in the PVP pool for 5* tier, therefore higher chance of encountering a new opponent.
Not only that, scaling no longer becomes an issue, because you can reliably work towards strengthening 5* heroes to combat the increased difficulty.

If this analysis is true, then what kind of methods do you feel would offer a sufficient enough solution?

(Keep in mind this is all a hypothetical, brainstorm discussion for information purposes)

Just make a new token for 5* only draws. make it more expensive like
100cp and be done with it. That way at least we know at 5 times the cost we are guaranteed a 5* compared with what it is now where you are not even guaranteed a 5* when you use 8 LTs. It's not the duplicate 5* that are the problem. It's that 5* are so rare, so duplicate 5* are very painful.

More 5* rosters to increase shield rank. Cost of a 5* would still stay high but has reasonable rng. Also the LTs will still give people a chance at 5* but mostly will be a 4* token draw.

100cp would be a substantial increase in the effective rate - that 4 Latest Leg - if RNG were balances it would take 7 today to achieve a single 5* cover. 150 cp maybe.

And a 100% 5 star token would effectively push everyone into the 5* tier and pass transition at all levels, can't see that happening.

I think a better option would be a 10 pack of LTs - save CP and by a 10 pack which guarantees 1 5 star cover will be pulled - that would be slightly below the current rate but the first 9 pulls would be RNG so could achieve a higher percentage but you'd be 100% sure of atleast achieving a 10% draw rate.

also let LTs be saved up as earned and converted to a ten pack - the mechanics for something like this are all in game today pretty much.

My preferred version would be to up the draw rate to 20% and only sell ten packs where two pulls are guaranteed as 5*s and the other 8 as 4*s because that means everyone is getting the same results and I'm not falling behind the guy who is on a RNG hot streak - if those covers get implemented as part of a colourless cover change then 5* transition become much more manageable than today without accelerating people through to quickly.

dsds

alphabeta wrote:

dsds wrote:

Brigby wrote:

Hey everyone. I'm back again.

So upon further inspection, it seems to me like there are numerous issues that stem from one root cause: 5* Pulls
It seems like a more reliable method to pull 5* covers has been a general desire. Hypothetically if a reliable method was implemented, in your opinions, would the following analysis be correct?

If a more reliable method of acquiring 5* covers is implemented, the low probability is no longer an issue.
Since low probability is no longer an issue, having new heroes added so quickly that cause the probability to lower no longer becomes an issue.
On top of that, since there are now more players with 5* heroes, there are more players in the PVP pool for 5* tier, therefore higher chance of encountering a new opponent.
Not only that, scaling no longer becomes an issue, because you can reliably work towards strengthening 5* heroes to combat the increased difficulty.

If this analysis is true, then what kind of methods do you feel would offer a sufficient enough solution?

(Keep in mind this is all a hypothetical, brainstorm discussion for information purposes)

Just make a new token for 5* only draws. make it more expensive like
100cp and be done with it. That way at least we know at 5 times the cost we are guaranteed a 5* compared with what it is now where you are not even guaranteed a 5* when you use 8 LTs. It's not the duplicate 5* that are the problem. It's that 5* are so rare, so duplicate 5* are very painful.

More 5* rosters to increase shield rank. Cost of a 5* would still stay high but has reasonable rng. Also the LTs will still give people a chance at 5* but mostly will be a 4* token draw.

100cp would be a substantial increase in the effective rate - that 4 Latest Leg - if RNG were balances it would take 7 today to achieve a single 5* cover. 150 cp maybe.

And a 100% 5 star token would effectively push everyone into the 5* tier and pass transition at all levels, can't see that happening.

I think a better option would be a 10 pack of LTs - save CP and by a 10 pack which guarantees 1 5 star cover will be pulled - that would be slightly below the current rate but the first 9 pulls would be RNG so could achieve a higher percentage but you'd be 100% sure of atleast achieving a 10% draw rate.

also let LTs be saved up as earned and converted to a ten pack - the mechanics for something like this are all in game today pretty much.

My preferred version would be to up the draw rate to 20% and only sell ten packs where two pulls are guaranteed as 5*s and the other 8 as 4*s because that means everyone is getting the same results and I'm not falling behind the guy who is on a RNG hot streak - if those covers get implemented as part of a colourless cover change then 5* transition become much more manageable than today without accelerating people through to quickly.

Yeah I've pulled at least 10 LTs so far and not a single 5* came up. Yeah that;s right, it's equivalent to 200cp. I am suggesting half that to pull a 5*. For some people 5* are raining, for others it is horrible. I would rather increase the price and make it fair for everyone. yeah the people who pulling 25% rates of course aren't going to be happy. But it will be fair.

carrion_pigeons

The design goal of any changes made to endgame progression should be aimed at

1) Quality of life changes that make current player goals a bit less frustrating. I want to stress that small changes ought to be the order of the day here: big changes risk doing more to string out the playerbase than things do now. But changes should still be made once in a while because that's a huge factor in retention.

2) Catch up mechanics designed to make new releases relevant to more players and build out the ranks of players who can compete at a high level. These sorts of changes cam be a little more aggressive since the cost to gameplay of advancing too quickly through lower tiers isn't as big.

El Satanno

Brigby wrote:

Hey everyone. I'm back again.

So upon further inspection, it seems to me like there are numerous issues that stem from one root cause: 5* Pulls
It seems like a more reliable method to pull 5* covers has been a general desire. Hypothetically if a reliable method was implemented, in your opinions, would the following analysis be correct?

If a more reliable method of acquiring 5* covers is implemented, the low probability is no longer an issue.
Since low probability is no longer an issue, having new heroes added so quickly that cause the probability to lower no longer becomes an issue.
On top of that, since there are now more players with 5* heroes, there are more players in the PVP pool for 5* tier, therefore higher chance of encountering a new opponent.
Not only that, scaling no longer becomes an issue, because you can reliably work towards strengthening 5* heroes to combat the increased difficulty.

If this analysis is true, then what kind of methods do you feel would offer a sufficient enough solution?

(Keep in mind this is all a hypothetical, brainstorm discussion for information purposes)

First, I love you. Please never change this wonderful conversational attitude. You have no idea how refreshing it is to talk with a red name on a regular basis, even if it's hypothetical and/or no real answers available.

Second, like others have said, the scarcity of 5* covers is only one half of the problem. The utility of those covers is just as aggravating. Perhaps the only thing comparable to the frustration of pulling LT after LT and getting nothing but 4* covers is to finally pull a 5* cover that you can't use because it's the 6th on a non-maxed character. I reckon if we ran a poll of people with aggravating builds (ex: 5/5/0) we'd find out a lot of them also have been pulling the same color over and over again.

Case in point: One of the guys in my alliance has a 5/5/3 Phoenix...and a 5/0/0 Phoenix...and a 1/0/0 Phoenix. Care to take a guess how that happened? I'm sure he's not alone, either.

Honestly, I think simply having either a colorless 5* cover scheme or something similar would be the greatest relief. Let us scramble to luck out on 15%. That's fine by me. However don't give us a kick in the nuts when we finally get that purple cover screen.

DFiPL

Brigby wrote:

Hey everyone. I'm back again.

So upon further inspection, it seems to me like there are numerous issues that stem from one root cause: 5* Pulls
It seems like a more reliable method to pull 5* covers has been a general desire. Hypothetically if a reliable method was implemented, in your opinions, would the following analysis be correct?

If a more reliable method of acquiring 5* covers is implemented, the low probability is no longer an issue.

I think that depends on the implementation, doesn't it? For example, a "streakbuster" is great for players in the 5* pool, because they know that after X 4* pulls, they'll get a purple flash of some kind. The drawback, of course, is the very nature of RNG could mean that lower-end players acquire 5* covers more rapidly than desired/warranted. It's easy to say "don't open Legendaries until..." and I've done just that with people to whom I've introduced MPQ; the game doesn't have roster-building advice anywhere within, however, and I'd wager that the pool of low-end players who don't interact with veteran players far outstrips the pool of low-end players who have mentors.

If, on the other hand, there were some kind of a cover conversion mechanic where you could trade in a particular quantity of 4* covers for a 5*-only token? Yeah, that would have to be carefully balanced, and even so, there would probably still be some unforeseen/unintended consequences, but the unintended consequences would (probably) be limited to the higher-end players without adversely affecting the lower-end players.

Since low probability is no longer an issue, having new heroes added so quickly that cause the probability to lower no longer becomes an issue.

Disagree here. Dilution is still a thing because it means if you don't cover a 5* within the first couple months of release, it gets significantly harder. You may have a more reliable path to 5* pulls, but covering any particular 5* still gets less likely with each new 5* release. For example, there are currently eight 5* characters in a Classic Pack. Under any particular implementation of a more reliable 5* pull method - a streakbuster, a cover converter, a more-expensive LT with a doubled pull rate, whatever - that purple flash, when it comes, has a 1-in-8 chance of being the character you're trying to cover, and a 1-in-24 chance of being the particular cover you need. Assuming one new 5* every month, each addition to the Latest token is going to lengthen the odds in the Classic token, even for a "reliable" 5* pull. Once Medusa pushes out Black Bolt or Black Widow, those odds shift to 1-in-9 and 1-in-27. When the next 5* comes along, you're up to 1-in-10 and 1-in-30. That's assuming one 5* a month, and not an increase in release rates.

I'm not saying that's a SKY-IS-FALLING issue under this hypothetical new setup, but I would say that "no longer...an issue" would be inaccurate.

On top of that, since there are now more players with 5* heroes, there are more players in the PVP pool for 5* tier, therefore higher chance of encountering a new opponent.

If those additional players level their 5* heroes, sure. They may not. That's the unintended consequences bit from above. Whether or not a player with 5* heroes feels safe to level their characters and play in that tier is going to depend on the rest of their roster and what happens to their scaling.

Not only that, scaling no longer becomes an issue, because you can reliably work towards strengthening 5* heroes to combat the increased difficulty.

I think that might be true in the long run, but I'm not confident it would be true in the short run. Wouldn't scaling continue to increase as you strengthen your 5* heroes? In doing so, you end up leaving other characters behind. That limits your roster diversity, which limits your ability to cope with scaling on that level. Eventually, once the 5* tier has a wider variety of characters, I could see that being true, but in the short term, I see it as 5* characters being a crutch whose use, paradoxically, makes you more reliant on the crutch. Yes, the 5* are strong enough to power through quite a lot, but the flip side to that is that you end up having to use the 5* in order to run that gauntlet.

Matt Murdock

Brigby wrote:

Hey everyone. I'm back again.

So upon further inspection, it seems to me like there are numerous issues that stem from one root cause: 5* Pulls
It seems like a more reliable method to pull 5* covers has been a general desire. Hypothetically if a reliable method was implemented, in your opinions, would the following analysis be correct?

If a more reliable method of acquiring 5* covers is implemented, the low probability is no longer an issue.
Since low probability is no longer an issue, having new heroes added so quickly that cause the probability to lower no longer becomes an issue.
On top of that, since there are now more players with 5* heroes, there are more players in the PVP pool for 5* tier, therefore higher chance of encountering a new opponent.
Not only that, scaling no longer becomes an issue, because you can reliably work towards strengthening 5* heroes to combat the increased difficulty.

If this analysis is true, then what kind of methods do you feel would offer a sufficient enough solution?

(Keep in mind this is all a hypothetical, brainstorm discussion for information purposes)

Let me just throw my hat in the ring and say that 5* dilution rates are the #1 threat to this game. Say you have a 5/0/5 old man logan. Based on statistical analysis, the amount of CP you would need to draw even one of that missing cover is about 3000CP. That number continues to grow as more 5*s are added to the game. On the other hand, ridiculous 5* scaling forces top rosters to use the same characters, so new 5*s and/or a rebalancing of enemies are badly needed.

However, if that CP cost continues to grow, the game will eventually become unplayable for newcomers. Let me put it in perspective. 75CP gain per week is definitely on the high end (without spending money), and spending $100 gets you 7CP. Without spending money that's 40 weeks (about 10 months) just to draw one missing cover. Now if 5* dilution rates continue to increase, a year from now it will take 2 years to draw a single missing cover.

This is an absurd state of affairs, and something needs to be done, otherwise everyone entering the 5* tier in the future will be quitting the game out of frustration. Those who started early and took advantage of reasonable draw rates are not affected as much. But they will eventually grow bored and quit. I realize you want to control the 5* economy to make money, but the way this is headed can lead only to disaster. The simplest, and most effective solution would be to split all the classic 5*s into 2 pools to draw from (a total of 3 pools). You could choose either/or depending on which character you need, and it would still allow you to moderate the amount of 5*s being given out. Of course, eventually a 3rd classic pool would be required, and then a 4th... so in the long run really it is only a temporary solution.

smkspy

My girlfriend said it best this morning after doing a bit of pve and deadpool, "you know if puzzle quest wanted to keep players like me more engaged then they should really throw me something other than two stars all the time (threw tokens)".

And that really boils down the problem with this game. It stays stuck in a 1/2 star mentality when the meta of the game passes this phase within a two weeks of starting the game.

Once pass a year, it gets tiresome and the fact that it continues the further long you develop in the game really pushes the average but consistent player away to something else.

And I know, people here will say, just tell her to start a two star farming. Let me just you all before that **** is even brought up. While the mechanic is some us diehard fanatics of the game sees as rational, in reality, it is madness for this type of game to cultivate such a convoluted mechanic for personal progression. The average players, the majority, just want a game where they can see and obtain a clear linear progression.

So all around, the problem just isn't 5 stars are too hard to obtain. It's 3s, 4s, and 5s are too to obtain or rather they become too much trouble to obtain. RNG beats you down with a stick then just normal play becomes something that feels more like hassle than fun.

carrion_pigeons

smkspy wrote:

The average players, the majority, just want a game where they can see and obtain a clear linear progression.

Sure, I think everyone recognizes that the pokemon mentality is a strong motivator to play, and the fact that the game throttles that puts a damper on enthusiasm about that part of the game. But the game is free to play, and that means their business model is based on whales. The average players play a role in their game design process, but it isn't to maximize how much fun they have. You're a cog in a machine.

smkspy

carrion pigeons wrote:

smkspy wrote:

The average players, the majority, just want a game where they can see and obtain a clear linear progression.

Sure, I think everyone recognizes that the pokemon mentality is a strong motivator to play, and the fact that the game throttles that puts a damper on enthusiasm about that part of the game. But the game is free to play, and that means their business model is based on whales. The average players play a role in their game design process, but it isn't to maximize how much fun they have. You're a cog in a machine.

Every player is a potential customer. So yeah, whales are going to whale, but whales are also the smallest base of the customer pool.

I always see the casino analogy brought up for these games. Well, you might lose at casino in the end, but they liquor you up enough with free booze that you don't notice losing until the next morning.

This game doesn't have free booze. So either the free booze needs to be covers or iso to keep people coming back and potentially spending money on game assets to help them improve.

Would say covers because it gives a more visual representation of an imaginary tangibility they can visually see. An average player might be more willing to spend on HP to roster or iso to level if they're sitting more high level covers than a sea of 1/2s. But can't have an artifical scarcity of both or everything as this game likes to show. It just drives potential customers away since every aspect then seems futile.

And that's the thing about being a cog, it only takes so many to stop working before the whole machine breaks down.

Matt Murdock

smkspy wrote:

My girlfriend said it best this morning after doing a bit of pve and deadpool, "you know if puzzle quest wanted to keep players like me more engaged then they should really throw me something other than two stars all the time (threw tokens)".

And that really boils down the problem with this game. It stays stuck in a 1/2 star mentality when the meta of the game passes this phase within a two weeks of starting the game.

Once pass a year, it gets tiresome and the fact that it continues the further long you develop in the game really pushes the average but consistent player away to something else.

And I know, people here will say, just tell her to start a two star farming. Let me just you all before that **** is even brought up. While the mechanic is some us diehard fanatics of the game sees as rational, in reality, it is madness for this type of game to cultivate such a convoluted mechanic for personal progression. The average players, the majority, just want a game where they can see and obtain a clear linear progression.

So all around, the problem just isn't 5 stars are too hard to obtain. It's 3s, 4s, and 5s are too to obtain or rather they become too much trouble to obtain. RNG beats you down with a stick then just normal play becomes something that feels more like hassle than fun.

I get where you're coming from, but I disagree with a couple of your statements. I felt that 3s and 4s were hard to get when I was starting out. I couldn't imagine how someone could have a championed 4*, because they seemed to come so slowly. However, with time these things change. I think the pacing of the progression in the early part of the game is so rapid, that it comes as a bit of a shock when you realize you've had a single cover 4* sitting there for months.

Now, I'm not sure what tier you are in. But I will say that 3*s are certainly not hard to get. You just have to wait some time for them to be the featured character, or come to DDQ, or pull them at random out of the hundreds of elite and heroic tokens that are thrown at you. Now that 4* covers are given in progression in SCL7, and you can get a good amount from legendary pulls, 4*s start to come fairly easily as well. I think it's a matter of adjusting to the pacing of the game. There is definitely a linear progression. As you start to have a more wide roster, you can perform better in PvE and get better progression and better placement. As you start to have more powerful characters, you can do increasingly better in PvP. As you start to have more 3*s, you will be able to take advantage of DDQ more often. As your 4s get better, you will eventually be able to complete Clash of Titans.

Honestly, having seen the progression throughout the game at all tiers, I can say that I have no problem whatsoever with the 1-4* tier. You think 3s and 4s are hard to get? Keep playing for a few months. Eventually you will have more covers than you know what to do with, and you will be in a constant state of ISO starvation trying to champ all the characters. PLEASE don't give us more 3s and 4s! I've had enough trouble keeping up as it is. In fact, I have put a complete halt on pulls for the most part, out of fear that the 4s I pull will be unusable duplicates (I'm up to a 43% chance of that happening).

The real problem lies solely with 5*s, as there is no way to reliably get them. Progression through the game is fairly linear up to that point (with some frequent roadbumps caused by ISO shortage), but once you start building your 5s, you have no hope but to get lucky. Whereas with 4*s you can eventually cover the characters as long as you keep playing and doing well in the events, with 5s, there is no guarantee of anything. You could be playing for years trying to get that one missing cover. That's the problem.

smkspy

4 champed 4s and all champed 3s with an active 2 star farm just at a little over 500 days.

But I'm representive of the player here on the forums, the fanatic that plays every pve to progression, is commander of my alliance, and farms every little Internet tip to get the most out of the game. About the only thing I avoid is playing hardcore pvp.

As I said, I'm speaking for the people like my girlfriend that starts out strong (currently has about 30 champed 3s but no champed 4s), slowly burns out, and eventually sees that sea of 1 star and 2 star tokens as more defeating than a sign of progress.

So yeah, I see a good amount of linear progression cause I'm as someone put it a cog in that wheel digging up every reward I can with just about every second of spare time that I can...but even then, this game can be more of a chore than fun.

Like us barely pulling 5 stars even though we have all of them rostered at 1 or 2 covers, those high rate 2 stars have an equally negative effect on the mood of players. Just look at the constant debates being had over these 4 star vaults.

Honestly, I think the game could eliminate the one star tier all together and nobody would notice.