Iso Spend Calculator Now w/ 4* Iso Data!

SolidQ

1 Stars 58,940 19,320 75.31%
2 Stars 474,524 311,456 60.37%
3 Stars 811,065 464,690 63.58%
Total 1,344,529 795,466 62.83%

Unknown

1 Stars 42,320 108,120 28.13%
2 Stars 186,563 599,417 23.74%
3 Stars 1,010,410 1,741,748 36.71%
Total 1,239,293 2,449,285 33.60%

Yeah, I got a ways to go.

Unknown

Iso Spent Iso to Max % Complete
1 Stars 75,560 74,880 50.23%
2 Stars 360,038 425,942 45.81%
3 Stars 1,237,384 1,514,774 44.96%
Total 1,672,982 2,015,596 45.36%

Unknown

Iso Spent	Iso to Max	% Complete
1 Stars	110,520	39,920	73.46%
2 Stars	171,897	614,083	21.87%
3 Stars	1,236,462	1,515,696	44.93%
4 Stars	7,458	853,470	0.87%
Total	1,526,337	3,023,169	33.55%

Updated spreadsheet with new 4* goodness

Clintman

Iso Spent Iso to Max % Complete
1 Stars 13,100 137,340 8.71%
2 Stars 302,846 483,134 38.53%
3 Stars 1,928,883 823,275 70.09%
4 Stars 16,182 844,746 1.88%
Total 2,261,011 2,288,495 49.70%

Unknown

Looking at the ISO requirement for a maxed 4*... I just don't think it's worth it given that you're spending over 400K ISO for not even 1.5x the power of a 3* (with reference to IW)...

over_clocked

My tab gets screwed up, I want to give it another try

Edit: done, thanks for the niftiness. How did you know how much it takes to max 4*s? Anonymous contributors?

Nemek

Doragon wrote:

Looking at the ISO requirement for a maxed 4*... I just don't think it's worth it given that you're spending over 400K ISO for not even 1.5x the power of a 3* (with reference to IW)...

While I'd agree the ISO costs are pretty darn high, I don't think the 1.5x comparison is really fair. I'd say that if the 4*s are strictly better than all of the 3*s (currently questionable statement), then it would most certainly be worth leveling them when you're looking at the end game.

Unknown

Pretty cool! Need more ISO!

Iso Spent Iso to Max % Complete
1 Stars 113,700 36,740 75.58%
2 Stars 600,897 185,083 76.45%
3 Stars 1,149,693 1,602,465 41.77%
4 Stars 1,113 859,815 0.13%
Total 1,865,403 2,684,103 41.00%

Spoit

Just shy of 1.1M, up from 750k last time

Unknown

Nemek wrote:

Doragon wrote:

Looking at the ISO requirement for a maxed 4*... I just don't think it's worth it given that you're spending over 400K ISO for not even 1.5x the power of a 3* (with reference to IW)...

While I'd agree the ISO costs are pretty darn high, I don't think the 1.5x comparison is really fair. I'd say that if the 4*s are strictly better than all of the 3*s (currently questionable statement), then it would most certainly be worth leveling them when you're looking at the end game.

This.

I mean, even at lvl 200 you are looking at the character probably having more hp and damage compared with a maxed 3***, even if the match damage is equal or slightly lower. If lazy characters are any indicator as to what rarity differences should indicate, then the 4**** should certainly be worth leveling. The issue of course is that there is no way to see that atm as xforce is severely malnourished and baglady, while upgraded to assistant manager, is still a baglady at heart. More importantly, she is not a damage dealer, a tank, or a normal support character but rather a weird hybrid who hasn't been able to shine due to not having characters that help her thrive (see part of daredevil's pool of issues). Xforce, again, was just very poorly made balance-wise. Extra sad because he has my favorite comic cover art in the game atm.

Unknown

locked wrote:

My tab gets screwed up, I want to give it another try

Edit: done, thanks for the niftiness. How did you know how much it takes to max 4*s? Anonymous contributors?

I think it was IceIX that provided the information.

Nemek wrote:

Doragon wrote:

Looking at the ISO requirement for a maxed 4*... I just don't think it's worth it given that you're spending over 400K ISO for not even 1.5x the power of a 3* (with reference to IW)...

While I'd agree the ISO costs are pretty darn high, I don't think the 1.5x comparison is really fair. I'd say that if the 4*s are strictly better than all of the 3*s (currently questionable statement), then it would most certainly be worth leveling them when you're looking at the end game.

Well, at what point does the comparison start or stop being fair?

I mean you're paying 1.5x the ISO cost, so you'll naturally expect them to be at least that much stronger at L230 compared to a 3* at L141, sounds about right.

If the power of a maxed 4* is only say... 1.1x that of maxed 3*, is he still worth the investment, or would you rather diversify and get 2 maxed 3*s?

NighteyesGrisu

Doragon wrote:

Well, at what point does the comparison start or stop being fair?

I mean you're paying 1.5x the ISO cost, so you'll naturally expect them to be at least that much stronger at L230 compared to a 3* at L141, sounds about right.

If the power of a maxed 4* is only say... 1.1x that of maxed 3*, is he still worth the investment, or would you rather diversify and get 2 maxed 3*s?

the key issue is that in any given match you can only use three characters. So if those three are 1.1x better than the team of the opponent then it still pays out. If the opponent could use four 3* chars for your three 4* then it would be a different matter.

Unknown

Technically it's worth it, but the return on investment is still pretty bad. I'd rather get 3 *** to lvl 120 before maxing out 1 ****. Chances that he's locked/not buffed in whatever event at the moment are too high to spend 430k ISO, at least for me.

The amount of users that has a diverse and maxed *** roster and can freely invest in a **** hero is probably still countable on one hand.

Unknown

I don't think it's calculating IM40 total properly - it appears to be using Loki's level instead.

Unknown

bughunt wrote:

I don't think it's calculating IM40 total properly - it appears to be using Loki's level instead.

Would have helped to read this thread before debugging it myself while updating my numbers. The formula is referencing cell O18 instead of O17.

Unknown

bughunt wrote:

I don't think it's calculating IM40 total properly - it appears to be using Loki's level instead.

Thanks. The original template actually didn't have that bug. The spreadsheet is giving me all sorts of crazy errors now because I think this became too popular and hit max calculation limit. As such, I've had to take the public one down and make a copy where you will have to make your own copy on your own google drive to use the calculator.

chrisf

entropic01 wrote:

bughunt wrote:

I don't think it's calculating IM40 total properly - it appears to be using Loki's level instead.

Thanks. The original template actually didn't have that bug. The spreadsheet is giving me all sorts of crazy errors now because I think this became too popular and hit max calculation limit. As such, I've had to take the public one down and make a copy where you will have to make your own copy on your own google drive to use the calculator.

Can you unhide the Iso tables sheet or integrate it to the template? It currently doesn't work when copied to another google drive because all of the formulas reference the "Iso Tables" sheet.

Unknown

You can copy the Iso Tables from the V2.0 into your new document, you'll have to update all columns once but it works.

Bainee

	       Iso Spent	 Iso to Max	% Complete
1 Stars	   18,720	    131,720	12.44%
2 Stars	  325,798	    460,182	41.45%
3 Stars	1,359,098	  1,393,060	49.38%
4 Stars	    2,282	    858,646	 0.27%
Total	  1,705,898	  2,843,608	37.50%