Too many new characters!

Phaserhawk

Dr Spaceman wrote:

Phaserhawk wrote:

The biggest problem with all the new characters is the cost of roster slots and the scaling HP. You can't accumulate HP faster than the new characters are coming out. I think they need to revamp the roster system or get rid of it entirely, seriously, why penalizing people for playing your game and gaining covers by not allowing them to get them unless they purchase a slot or sell a character.

They are not penalizing you. You are playing a free game.
What they want is for you to spend some money to gain some benefits.
If you don't want to spend money, well that's fine too.
You're not losing anything as the game is free after all.
If you choose to spend some money you can open up more rosters slots, or you can choose not to spend money and go the long road instead.

So I have 15 Roster spots, and all my guys are maxed out. How is it not a penalty that in order to get a new character I would have to sell another guy to make room? That's like saying
D3:Your garage is only two cars and you have 2 cars so in order to get this free car you have to get rid of one of your other cars.
The Avg Player: But I don't want to get rid of one of my cars
D3: Well, you can pay to expand your garage and then you can get this free car
The Avg Player: But I just customized my cars they are perfect and I cant afford to expand my garage
D3: Well, then this car will sit out on the road for 7 days in case you change your mind, then it disapears.
Dr.Spaceman: I don't know why you are complaining Avg Player, the car was never yours to begin with and if you really wanted it you could have expanded your garage or sold your customized car.
The Avg Player: Well that's not really free or non penalizing is it?

I understand your sentiment dude, but your logic is very flawed.

Unknown

NorthernPolarity wrote:

Yeah, some buffs to the available 2* characters would go a long way in promoting 2* diversity. The current usable 2* covers are Ares/Thor/Wolvie/OBW/Daken/C. Storm/MN Mags. If we think about this in terms of relevant active abilities, we have 4 characters that can use green (Ares/Thor/Wolvie/C. Storm), 4 characters that can use red (Ares/Thor/Wolvie/MN Mags), 2 characters that can use blue (C. Storm/OBW: MN Mags doesn't count), 2 Yellow characters (Ares/Thor), 1 purple character (MN Mags) and 1 black character (OBW...ish). This means that the characters that should be buffed are ones that have relevant abilities in the colors that aren't used as much. As a result, I think Moonstone would be the best character to buff: if you change her purple to always do damage and her black to actually do something, I think she could easily be a tier one character. Cap is okay to be buffed if you made his yellow actually do something, and Bullseye would be good as well if he had a 3rd skill and his black actually cost a reasonable amount.

I agree with this statement. If they took the time to buff the currently unused 2* characters, people would have a few more play options.
I'm guessing if they looked at the stats to see the least played 2* characters, Moonstone, Bullseye, Cap, Mawkeye would be near the top.
If they made these guys viable then the landscape would certainly change a bit.

Also, seriously they should do something with Yelena and Bagman. Either buff them or get rid of them. As is they are a joke.

Unknown

Phaserhawk wrote:

Dr Spaceman wrote:

Phaserhawk wrote:

The biggest problem with all the new characters is the cost of roster slots and the scaling HP. You can't accumulate HP faster than the new characters are coming out. I think they need to revamp the roster system or get rid of it entirely, seriously, why penalizing people for playing your game and gaining covers by not allowing them to get them unless they purchase a slot or sell a character.

They are not penalizing you. You are playing a free game.
What they want is for you to spend some money to gain some benefits.
If you don't want to spend money, well that's fine too.
You're not losing anything as the game is free after all.
If you choose to spend some money you can open up more rosters slots, or you can choose not to spend money and go the long road instead.

So I have 15 Roster spots, and all my guys are maxed out. How is it not a penalty that in order to get a new character I would have to sell another guy to make room? That's like saying
D3:Your garage is only two cars and you have 2 cars so in order to get this free car you have to get rid of one of your other cars.
The Avg Player: But I don't want to get rid of one of my cars
D3: Well, you can pay to expand your garage and then you can get this free car
The Avg Player: But I just customized my cars they are perfect and I cant afford to expand my garage
D3: Well, then this car will sit out on the road for 7 days in case you change your mind, then it disapears.
Dr.Spaceman: I don't know why you are complaining Avg Player, the car was never yours to begin with and if you really wanted it you could have expanded your garage or sold your customized car.
The Avg Player: Well that's not really free or non penalizing is it?

I understand your sentiment dude, but your logic is very flawed.

So choosing to use your HP either earned or bought to make more roster space is a penalty?

Or if you choose to make the hard decision to sell a character to make space for a new one, the - albeit small - compensation you receive for selling it is a penalty?
For the choice you made of your own free will?

Using your analogy, if you choose not to use the free car you can still sell it for $500. What a huge penalty, dude.

Spoit

dragma wrote:

The thing is you don not need he enw characters even for an event. The way the devs have it set up everyone can be competitive if you play smart, well except for the player who just has a lvl 10 Iron man 35, Hawkeye, and Black widow.

But that is a case of a very new character.

For 3*'s either spend a little money to get roster slots, or don't use your HP on the random tokens. But defentantly concentrate on getting the 2*'s leveled.

Honestly, with the way scaling works, a 1* person might be more competitive than a non-maxed 2* person

Unknown

Phaserhawk wrote:

So I have 15 Roster spots, and all my guys are maxed out. How is it not a penalty that in order to get a new character I would have to sell another guy to make room?

Not intending to justify the whole roster issue but I just want to point out something. In plenty of free to play games, the ability to even unlock more roster slots simply through play instead of money wouldn't even be an option. The latest I can think of off the top of my head would be Warframe, where you're pretty much at the mercy of the developers to give out their premium currency (you can't directly 'earn' them in game) or free weapons with slots, otherwise your only option is to sell your existing frames/weapons.

I'm not saying that 'because other things are worse you can't complain' but I'm much more lenient towards a game that gives you the ability to continually progress without being forced to pay or given some sort of free player ceiling.

Not even sure if there's a real point to be made, just an observation.

Unknown

I too personally would like to see the introduction if new characters to slow back down. With the way that the scaling seems to work I will have players that are underneath my overall leave winning the 3* cards when I might miss one. Ie Psylocke, I missed out on her the first round which set me back quiet a bit on previous ones where she was boosted.

kalex716

-Xios- wrote:

Phaserhawk wrote:

So I have 15 Roster spots, and all my guys are maxed out. How is it not a penalty that in order to get a new character I would have to sell another guy to make room?

Not intending to justify the whole roster issue but I just want to point out something. In plenty of free to play games, the ability to even unlock more roster slots simply through play instead of money wouldn't even be an option. The latest I can think of off the top of my head would be Warframe, where you're pretty much at the mercy of the developers to give out their premium currency (you can't directly 'earn' them in game) or free weapons with slots, otherwise your only option is to sell your existing frames/weapons.

I'm not saying that 'because other things are worse you can't complain' but I'm much more lenient towards a game that gives you the ability to continually progress without being forced to pay or given some sort of free player ceiling.

Not even sure if there's a real point to be made, just an observation.

This is a great point.

The chief difference between a game like warframe and this one is, a brand new warframe offers up a fair amount of "playability" out of the gate. Sure they tend to suck at first, but the fun is you then have to play it to level it up.

We have to waste slots on covers for new characters we won't be realistically able to actually "play" (outside of powered up events) for months until we cover them 10x over.

What they could do is, divide each slot up into many fractions, and we fill the space up per cover, not per hero. This would allow users to more accurately accommodate their roster space based more on strength and usability, rather than just raw number of heros. This is likely too steep of a design change to plan out, and implement now however.

Unknown

Phaserhawk wrote:

So I have 15 Roster spots, and all my guys are maxed out. How is it not a penalty that in order to get a new character I would have to sell another guy to make room?

If you've played enough to accumulate 15 maxed out characters, you've had enough time to manage your HP to get more than 15 roster slots. Slot 16 costs 200 HP and slots 17-20 each cost 250 HP. With alliance rewards being so generous, daily rewards, and personal rewards (as well as tokens), 200 HP takes at most 2 weeks to acquire possibly 3 if you're not terribly lucky or you're in a completely casual 5-man alliance. Of course, if you have 15 maxed characters, odds are you wouldn't be happy in a casual 5-man alliance and could easily find a better alliance to call home.

Phaserhawk wrote:

<snip>The Avg Player</snip>

I understand your sentiment dude, but your logic is very flawed.

As is your logic, Phaserhawk. I don't believe that your dialogue represents "the average (f2p) player"; rather you seem to have created a flawed player; one who has sunk a lot of time into the game (enough to get b/w 150 and 195 covers and the ISO to max them out) but still doesn't understand how to manage all the HP he would have gotten while maxing out that hypothetical roster. Your scenario might be more valid if you raised the roster limit for this "average player" to 20, when each slot begins to cost 300 HP. However, I believe the point you're trying to make weakens significantly then b/c 20 roster slots gives you space to store the best 1 and 2 stars (say 10 b/w those 2 categories), which still leaves space for another 10 3*'s. If you've sunk that much time and effort into the game, acquiring 300 HP should be trivial, especially with the presumed quality of this imagined roster.

And if my numbers are off in the distribution of this roster (say 15x 1 and 2 stars and only 5x 3 stars), then I'm going to be hard-pressed to find empathy for a player who can't dump his Daken or Juggs in favor of a "free" 3*. Yes the character you dump may be useful, but so would the 3 star. At that point, I feel the devs are justified in the line they've drawn in the sand.

Unknown

Phaserhawk wrote:

You can't accumulate HP faster than the new characters are coming out.

Assuming that there is a PvE with a new character and two PvPs every single week, even without shielding or having a top-tier team, you should be able to get top 100 in the PvE and top 25 in the PvPs just from putting the time in. That's 300 HP without counting daily rewards, subevent rewards, progression rewards, alliance rewards, or standard tokens. And there isn't a new character every week. It's DEFINITELY possible to accumulate HP faster than the new characters are coming out.

Puritas

Phaserhawk wrote:

So I have 15 Roster spots, and all my guys are maxed out. How is it not a penalty that in order to get a new character I would have to sell another guy to make room?
You can't accumulate HP faster than the new characters are coming out.

I don't have anywhere near 15 characters maxed out, and I'm pulling in 800+ HP a week

Unknown

Puritas wrote:

Phaserhawk wrote:

So I have 15 Roster spots, and all my guys are maxed out. How is it not a penalty that in order to get a new character I would have to sell another guy to make room?
You can't accumulate HP faster than the new characters are coming out.

I don't have anywhere near 15 characters maxed out, and I'm pulling in 800+ HP a week

I think he meant cover-maxed, not level-maxed

Spoit

Puritas wrote:

Phaserhawk wrote:

So I have 15 Roster spots, and all my guys are maxed out. How is it not a penalty that in order to get a new character I would have to sell another guy to make room?
You can't accumulate HP faster than the new characters are coming out.

I don't have anywhere near 15 characters maxed out, and I'm pulling in 800+ HP a week

How are you managing that? Each PvP event is only 200 each (unless you're in a top alliance), and this PvE event has a similar payout scale

Unknown

Spoit wrote:

Puritas wrote:

I don't have anywhere near 15 characters maxed out, and I'm pulling in 800+ HP a week

How are you managing that? Each PvP event is only 200 each (unless you're in a top alliance), and this PvE event has a similar payout scale

So that's already 600 from placement rewards for PVP alone (200 x 3 PVPs in a week right?).

Spoit

beezer37_84 wrote:

Spoit wrote:

Puritas wrote:

I don't have anywhere near 15 characters maxed out, and I'm pulling in 800+ HP a week

How are you managing that? Each PvP event is only 200 each (unless you're in a top alliance), and this PvE event has a similar payout scale

So that's already 600 from placement rewards for PVP alone (200 x 3 PVPs in a week right?).

Oh right. Plus 50 HP if you hit 900 each PvP. (I really should try to switch to a top 50 alliance, for that significantly increased HP feed, but I already sunk half my HP on my slot )

HailMary

Phaserhawk wrote:

So I have 15 Roster spots, and all my guys are maxed out. How is it not a penalty that in order to get a new character I would have to sell another guy to make room?

If you have 15 maxed characters, you should have many more than 15 roster slots. I probably crossed the 15-slot mark before I even started actually fielding a 2* team, and I felt perpetually in pressing need of roster slots until slot 28 or so.

I currently have 6 level-maxed characters (Thor is at L77, but I'm counting him), 9 cover-maxed characters (incl. the 6 level-maxed), and 31 roster slots. And yes, I'm F2P.

EDIT: Yep. I can confirm that I had 15+ slots during my 1*->2* transition - viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3662

BearVenger

Thank you for putting words into my frustrations with this, otherwise, fun game. The "diversity" of 3* characters, combined with the rabid MMR keeps me from wanting to experiment.

I'm a dedicated, but cheap, player. Before they started rolling out alliances, I spent $5 to get HP to up my roster spaces. I got my first Thor and C. Storm, and I felt like I could compete against 2*s. Then they rolled out Iron Man 40. Then Ragnarok. Then Hulk. Then Punisher. Then Patch. Then The Hood. Then Daredevil. Then Psylocke. Then Black Panther. Then Lazy Thor. Then Lazy Cap. Then Human Torch.

I'm currently at 32/32 characters. I like them, but I really only work about 4-5 into my normal rotation. I've got 4 single-star characters that are taking up space, but they're cute and have sentimental value. I have a few maxed 2*s that are obsolete (like Bullseye, sadly, and Captain America). And I've got fifteen 3* and 4* guys who are under-covered and, therefore, under-leveled (lvl 73 or less).

I like them. I keep them, because I might need them as the necessary character for one PvE level or another. And because I can hope against hope that 3 months of grinding will give me someone I can call up from the minor leagues. But I can't bring them out of mothballs often, because the merciless MMR --even in the practice room-- will send me back to 50-minute timeout since the game has determined I can only play against maxed 2* and high 3* teams, and if I try to implement "diversity," I'm going to get my hat handed to me and not take home any ISO or HP. That's really not a lot of fun, especially if I'm shooting for "diversity."

And since this game is based on Marvel's IPs, there's no way I'm getting my heart set on any one new character. These guys have enough characters in the pipeline that I'm not going to buy one. That way lies madness. Still, this "use your best or lose" game design is going to catch up to me, and I'll have to bow out.

I like this game. I'd pay, maybe, $10 to own it or more for new plot/play content. But I refuse to rent a games that are really the same match-3 mechanism over and over again.

Spoit

But yes, he's almost certainly talking about cover complete 'maxed', not level maxed

Shadow

Frankly, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Nobody said that you need to max out every single 3* that's going to come out. Just pick and choose who you like to max out. After some time, you'd have 13 covers for the characters anyway and it's just a matter of pouring in the iso to level it. E.g. for Psylocke, I'd have 9 covers after Hollowpoint Kiss. There are people who would have more covers for her. That's without spending any HP to buy any covers. My BP is at 7 covers also. After a couple more events where these characters are given as rewards, they'd be pretty much max covered and it's just a matter of putting in the iso.

As for the "older" characters, that's what lightning rounds are there for. So those characters can get their covers too.

So, really? Too many new characters that they can't be max covered? I don't think so.

BearVenger

I appreciate the advice, but the rising tide of 3* and 4* characters makes it pretty darn hard to target a character, since all of the covers I get are from the game's choosing.

More characters means fewer times before any specific one is a tourney prize.

Unknown

They obviously want to encourage people to have a wide variety of character. It's good for business not to mention it makes a more interesting game if you actually see more than the same 5 guys at the 3*. In this respect they're obviously still not doing enough to encourage variety of 3*s.

I think people who have cover issues are obsessive collectors. I am one too, and it took me a long time to get rid of Yelena to make room for someone else.