New Feature: Bonus Heroes! *Updated (3/1/17)

astrp3

zodiac339 wrote:

Okay, good with bad.
Bad: 1/20 chance IF you get the 1/4 chance of available rares. So, 1 in 80 chance basically.

Compared to what it was before, it seems to me it's both good and bad.

Previously, you had around a 1/8 chance (don't know the actual #s but basing it on their claim that the new rate is over 2X the old rate) for getting a 3*.

Now, you have a 1/4 chance of getting one of the 20 selected 3*s (and about a 4X better chance of getting a specific one) and about a 1/80 chance of getting one of your favorites (chance of getting a specific one could be higher or lower than before depending on how many you select - though if select more than a handful, your chances are lower).

sinnerjfl

nick_chicane wrote:

I've seen nothing that says the older 3* and 4*s will never appear in packs again. Clearly, that would be ridiculous. What I'm expecting to see is that all the items will get rotated at various intervals. Until I see that doesn't happen I'm not going to jump to conclusions.

Newest Characters in Packs:
Also, starting with Bonus Heroes, packs will contain the newest characters. In packs that have 4-Stars, you will be able to get the 12 latest 4-Stars that have been released. For 3-Stars, you will be able to get 20 3-Stars chosen by the Design team at Demiurge Studios. Whenever a new character is introduced into these packs, the oldest character will be rotated out of the pack.

The only rotation thats planned is removing the oldest releases for the new ones. That's it.

If they have plan to rotate them they need to clarify this ASAP.

beyonderbub

I'm willing to give it a chance. I blew through a mini-hoard of token packs and CP after this kicked in today. Didn't receive any bonus covers yet; but was able to 'use' everything pulled. Gonna try and just pull packs as I get them and see where that takes me. I hope my roster can handle it.

Dayv

nick_chicane wrote:

I've seen nothing that says the older 3* and 4*s will never appear in packs again. Clearly, that would be ridiculous. What I'm expecting to see is that all the items will get rotated at various intervals. Until I see that doesn't happen I'm not going to jump to conclusions.

They definitely implied that the 3* lineup would be changing over time.

The implication for 4* characters, however, is that the oldest will be displaced as the new ones go in and it will for the foreseeable future contain only the 12 latest 4* at any given time.

It's a bad move. If they don't walk this back in the next couple of days, I'm probably done. I wish I hadn't renewed VIP this morning.

Dayv

astrp3 wrote:

Previously, you had around a 1/8 chance (don't know the actual #s but basing it on their claim that the new rate is over 2X the old rate) for getting a 3*.

Now, you have a 1/4 chance of getting one of the 20 selected 3*s

You see, they used confusing wording there. What they actually meant when they said that 3* drop rates were doubled was that they were doubled for the characters still available in the tokens. This is staggeringly easy to do if you just take out half the possible results.

And then the 4* characters! They more than tripled the drop rate for the characters in the tokens by taking out more than two-thirds of the characters you could get!

Are you mad now?

Crowl

nick_chicane wrote:

People just love to complain.

Before, packs were becoming too diluted so they could never draw the character they wanted. Now, with packs watered down, people complain that they cant get a specific character. How do they win?

We wont really know how this change will work until a few weeks down the line, but if they have plans to rotate the charcters in packs every few weeks, I think its a great system. Any characters I particularly want covers for who aren't in this rotation (Iceman), I've added to my bonus list. The point to the bonus list is to add characters you really, really want. You'd think most would just add the ones who are best on their roster. Clearly, if you add everyone, you aren't changing your chances much from the previous system. Its about being selective now, so select the best guys that are going to help your roster needs the most right now.

The problem is that what people really object to is pulling useless characters or unusable covers, neither of these things have changed with this move because you have a large number of top tier 4* characters missing and that latest 12 includes a number of characters that stink.

I think you are in for a shock if you expect them to rotate 4*s every few weeks, with the rate of releases they already have an established mechanism for changing the contents of a pack i.e. one in one out.

Dragon_Nexus

broll wrote:

Lukoil wrote:

sinnerjfl wrote:

Vaulting a ton of characters and making them unavailable is a lot more important. You've basically killed your champions
system with this vaulting stuff, way to go!

But you can make them available just by selecting all of them as favorites

So instead of RNG they are now an RNG to an RNG to an RNG. I'm thrilled.

I was just thinking that actually then wondering why they was no "Yo dawg, we heard you liked RNG" meme

whitecat31

fmftint wrote:

The 5 star odds on Latests now displays 1/7, is that a solid 1/7 or an ambiguous 1/7?

My guess is it is a solid percentage drop from 15% to 14.25 %. Everybody who has said we have a standard 15% chance to pull a legendary token is in theory thinking they have added an extra 0.75% with the bonus pull chance. Nope 14.25 + 0.75 = 15%.
Our 5 star percentage pull is still at 15%, it just means that if you spend 2800 cp in the legendary classics one of the covers you want will be a favorite.

broll

This is gonna put an even larger gap between 5* and 4* rosters. Might actually be worth just skipping the 4* tier. They broke it pretty good.

HaywireII

Well...not ever. But I love this change. Took Captain Marvel from 10 covers to 13+3 and going to champ her. So nice to be able to target my pulls.

Vhailorx

I think people are being a bit conspiratorial about the ~1:7 thing. They put the tilde in there, and 1:7 is the closest interger ratio (with 1 as a numerator) to 15%. Rounding to a nice even ratio seems more likely than stralth nerfing the 5* drop rate.

This is why switching to ratios was stupid. It's less precise than percentages (which were already rounded themselves). But at least on the plus side. . .nope i honestly can't think of one thing about using ratios that is an improvement for players. Maybe the inscrutability is a perceivrd benefit for demi/d3? Since fewer players will understand how bad the odds are?

whitecat31

Tilesmasher wrote:

So I'm 1 cover away from maxing OML, my best odds are now to favorite him and him only and pull from the 25cp store yes?

It's really just a question of which store gives the best odds of pulling a 5 period.. And then hoping the bonus kicks in?

No. You still only have a 14.25% chance (~1:7) whether it is a legendary classics or a legendary token pull. So you currently have 10 five stars to choose from in the classics. That is a 1.43% chance to get an OML cover. With the extra 0.73% chance that translates to a theoretical 2.1% chance to get an OML cover now.
So in Legendary Token land you would have to spend 140 pulls at 25 command points each, to get an OML cover. Total 3500 command points.
While in Legendary Classics land you would have to spend 48 pulls at 20 command points each to get an OML cover. Total 960 command points.

Dragon_Nexus

Vhailorx wrote:

I think people are being a bit conspiratorial about the ~1:7 thing. They put the tilde in there, and 1:7 is the closest interger ratio (with 1 as a numerator) to 15%. Rounding to a nice even ratio seems more likely than stralth nerfing the 5* drop rate.

This is why switching to ratios was stupid. It's less precise than percentages (which were already rounded themselves). But at least on the plus side. . .nope i honestly can't think of one thing about using ratios that is an improvement for players. Maybe the inscrutability is a perceivrd benefit for demi/d3? Since fewer players will understand how bad the odds are?

If I had my cynical hat on, I'd say they were aiming to deliberately obfuscate the odds to cause confusion and make something seem more obtainable than it actually is.
15% sounds like **** odds, but 1:7 sounds pretty damn good.

killerkoala

i think the best solution over all would be:

Bonus characters same as described.

-Latest Legendary tokens have newest 3 (5*) and 12 (latest 4*'s).
-Classic Legendary tokens have rest of 5* and 4*.
-Have "new" drop rate of 4* still be 1:14 but have all 4*'s except "new and limited" characters available in Heroic/Events tokens.
-Switch out Half 3* (21) every season so "new" drop rate stay about the same for them for all tokens they are in Standards, Elites and Heroic/Event tokens. so every character can drop every 2 seasons.

JablesMc

killerkoala wrote:

i think the best solution over all would be:

Bonus characters same as described.

-Latest Legendary tokens have newest 3 (5*) and 12 (latest 4*'s).
-Classic Legendary tokens have rest of 5* and 4*.
-Have "new" drop rate of 4* still be 1:14 but have all 4*'s except "new and limited" characters available in Heroic/Events tokens.
-Switch out Half 3* (21) every season so "new" drop rate stay about the same for them for all tokens they are in Standards, Elites and Heroic/Event tokens. so every character can drop every 2 seasons.

So much this.

Pylgrim

shobi6669 wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

I emphasise the choice aspect of it, because in the past, for every "lucky" draw of Iceman or one of the other staple characters, you drew lots of Mr Fs and V4nom and the such. Such waste of a draw won't happen ever again.

The problem with this point of view is that those of us who are loathe to waste/sell covers already adapted to the status quo and have champed IW / Elektra / Mr. F / EddieVenom / Spider-Gwen / Flaptain / Carnage / pick whichever 4star you do not like or consider worthy. We did it to supposedly take advantage of the champion system (which I still maintain was a great add to the game) and to not waste covers. The real problem is not with what they have done with the new system, the problem for me was that it was announced and then patched into the game so quickly and with no warning that I had no time to react. When I left for work earlier today b/c I have 31 champs (not counting Dino & Duck), if I opened my hoarded tokens MOST of them would have been champion rewards. When I was free to open the game again, the only thing I can pull with my hoarded tokens are new characters of which I only had 2 champed. I did open some tokens, but it did not take long b/f I had to stop - few enough that I never even got a "bonus hero" so I will take others word that it actually works - but because all the new characters are not champed, I had to stop pulling to avoid wasting / selling covers.

I cannot decide if I feel like they actually planned a bait & switch on me (you need to champ all the old fours, so you stop wasting covers and the champion system really gives you an incentive to do that, so I did it) or if circumstance just fell that this really moved the goal line even further away for me. I can't open my tokens now b/c I simply do not have enough iso to champ the 9 4stars which remain in tokens that I do not have covered/champed. I guess this gives me a real incentive to champ the new 4s, but I feel like a fool for buying into the champ system and champing the dud old fours, thinking their champ levels would pay off down the line. Sounds like I'll never be getting those champ levels for the old 4s now.

TLDR = this only forces me to hoard more and progress less and I really wish they had explained it longer in advance of pushing it through so I could have cracked my legendaries and spent my CP on further progressing the roster I already chose to progress rather than the 12 newest I am left with now.

You have a point, though when I mentioned those characters I wasn't meaning "characters that are bad" but "characters that are bad and I haven't champed". For characters that are bad and we champed, it is indeed a bad thing as we'll rarely get more of their covers, making the initial investment a bit worse. But my point is that from now on, we will NOT have to champ old bad characters that we don't care for since we can target our pulls to almost never have extra covers that would be "wasted". So while your Eddie and Flaptain and SpiderGwen languish, you can choose to make characters that you are actually excited to play with become more powerful, quicker, while receiving better champ rewards. 30 champ levels in Iceman are definitely better than an average of one level in all the other "old" 4*s that you have champed.

cletus1985

Can we just implement an already existent mechanism in the game into the Tokens? Can we use Clearance Levels to decide what we want to draw from? CL1 gives the current 4*'s in legendaries and each CL up adds 5 more to the pool? That way newer players will have a smaller more targeted pool and vets have the option to add to their 4* heroes or target a smaller pool if they like? Would this hurt anything?

Not sure why these things aren't discussed with the playerbase to see what will work best for the customer? The resources are obviously here to make this a win/win for both sides.

Jaedenkaal

aesthetocyst wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

I think people are being a bit conspiratorial about the ~1:7 thing. They put the tilde in there, and 1:7 is the closest interger ratio (with 1 as a numerator) to 15%. Rounding to a nice even ratio seems more likely than stralth nerfing the 5* drop rate.

This is why switching to ratios was stupid. It's less precise than percentages (which were already rounded themselves). But at least on the plus side. . .nope i honestly can't think of one thing about using ratios that is an improvement for players. Maybe the inscrutability is a perceivrd benefit for demi/d3? Since fewer players will understand how bad the odds are?

"3:20" beats the pants off "~1:7". For being more accurate (assuming the 15% hasn't changed....) and for avoiding the ambiguity introduced by a tilde.

Someone probably insisted on a "1" for the numerator, and thus approximations creep in. Gods forbid anyone should think they were getting 3 of something because it said 3 in 20.

What I find funny is that this change in format would be a great way to get away from displaying decimals, which dilution is driving to ever smaller realms requiring more and more leading zeros. But the vaulting scheme results in undilution, erasing and somewhat erasing the decimal problem, heh.

Overall the odds display is a lot more sophisticated and polished. A sign this game may make it out of beta after all?

Of course, the odds of getting a cover from within one of those pools isn't necessarily the same for all the covers in that pool, either. They've said as much for characters that are "featured." So we're missing that information, which we (technically) used to have in a uselessly truncated form.

Vhailorx

aesthetocyst wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

I think people are being a bit conspiratorial about the ~1:7 thing. They put the tilde in there, and 1:7 is the closest interger ratio (with 1 as a numerator) to 15%. Rounding to a nice even ratio seems more likely than stralth nerfing the 5* drop rate.

This is why switching to ratios was stupid. It's less precise than percentages (which were already rounded themselves). But at least on the plus side. . .nope i honestly can't think of one thing about using ratios that is an improvement for players. Maybe the inscrutability is a perceivrd benefit for demi/d3? Since fewer players will understand how bad the odds are?

"3:20" beats the pants off "~1:7". For being more accurate (assuming the 15% hasn't changed....) and for avoiding the ambiguity introduced by a tilde.

Someone probably insisted on a "1" for the numerator, and thus approximations creep in. Gods forbid anyone should think they were getting 3 of something because it said 3 in 20.

What I find funny is that this change in format would be a great way to get away from displaying decimals, which dilution is driving to ever smaller realms requiring more and more leading zeros. But the vaulting scheme results in undilution, erasing and somewhat erasing the decimal problem, heh.

Overall the odds display is a lot more sophisticated and polished. A sign this game may make it out of beta after all?

I disagree completely aesth. I find this odds display unacceptably misleading. It provides less detail than the old system while consistently misleading the player unto believing the odds are better than they really are. Total disaster and borderline predatory if preserved IMO. Kind of shocked to hear that you like it.

OneLastGambit

DayvBang wrote:

astrp3 wrote:

Previously, you had around a 1/8 chance (don't know the actual #s but basing it on their claim that the new rate is over 2X the old rate) for getting a 3*.

Now, you have a 1/4 chance of getting one of the 20 selected 3*s

You see, they used confusing wording there. What they actually meant when they said that 3* drop rates were doubled was that they were doubled for the characters still available in the tokens. This is staggeringly easy to do if you just take out half the possible results.

And then the 4* characters! They more than tripled the drop rate for the characters in the tokens by taking out more than two-thirds of the characters you could get!

Are you mad now?

Hypothetical scenario ....

Lets imagine instead of removing them they put them in an alternate pool. Well call it the retirement home since it contains old characters. Would you be rushing to then spend all your cp in the retirement home? Orrrr would you still be spending it on the newer characters even with the exact same odds?

Chances are it'll be option b. The issue isn't that they took people out of the pool (the forum has been wanting that for a while) the issue is you want the ability to choose even though you won't choose. Which has the exact same effect as taking them away.