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

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.

fanghoul

Not sure how I feel about this change. There's some really interesting benefits and costs to taking things in this entirely unexpected direction. I guess I would have encouraged the developers to do this in two parts, and split up the Bonus Character and removing older characters from packs. There's going to be a less signal to noise now about what people like and don't like this way.

Given that it has happened, I guess I'm in the pleased crowd. Like, not I'm psyched about it, but I do like the idea that I can get more of the new characters now, who were mostly who I was interested in anyway, and that I can target specific older characters if I want them. I'd still like a mechanism for getting those older characters a little more often than the current maybe 1/20 ratio only if I choose to heart them, but this is mostly a net gain for me.

edit:
Extra 5 minutes of thought, there some real benefit here. As someone who's been frantically rostering characters for a long time now as I pulled them, it would have been nice not to have to worry about some of these jerks (carnage) showing up again and again when I just did not have the HP to roster them, and I hated wasting CP pulling them.

Vhailorx

OneLastGambit wrote:

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.

Except that LOTS of people would choose the retirement hime if it were priced anywhere close t9 the new characters. People gripe about dilution in classics, but lots of people still buyonly classics, preferring to build up their 5* bench slowly but all together.

killerkoala

aesthetocyst wrote:

Jaedenkaal wrote:

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.

Looking at the "KRAKAKAKAAKAKKADOOOOOOLOMMMM" odds, I see that Rags has a highlight.

No indication of what that highlight means tho. Oopsie!

it's because it's a special event token and "bag rags" is available in 3* pool.

Ludaa

How will essentials be picked with this new vault scam in place?

JablesMc

Vhailorx wrote:

OneLastGambit wrote:

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.

Except that LOTS of people would choose the retirement hime if it were priced anywhere close t9 the new characters. People gripe about dilution in classics, but lots of people still buyonly classics, preferring to build up their 5* bench slowly but all together.

Yup, 20 cp immediately go to a classic

killerkoala

Ludaa wrote:

How will essentials be picked with this new vault scam in place?

Vault are not included in bonus covers. and what u see is what u "can" get in vaults.

whycantwesyncpc

OneLastGambit wrote:

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.

*snip*, some of us actually need those old covers. I'm just about to go into the 4* transition, and of the ones I have rostered none of them are fully covered let alone champed. Taking them away is completely 100% unacceptable. Vast majority that are available to be pulled are ones I don't care about rostering or covering. Too many duplicates and promotion of bad marvel ideas. I'd rather wait on most of them.

Then again, why should I be allowed access to characters I want/need *snip* . The majority of the playerbase need these characters and should be locked out of them.


Please do not attack other players. It is understandable that players are upset over this, and posting about why is okay. I even encourage it. Just please do not attack other players while doing so.

Thank you,
Danger.

Crowl

OneLastGambit wrote:

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.

I think the choice most people would like to make would be to exclude some of the mediocre or worse characters from the various tiers rather than throwing out all the useful ones that happen to be older than the latest 12, besides the obvious examples like Iceman, Rulk etc if you look at the character rankings post in the other forum, we have lost the chance to easily get 2/3 of the top 20 4* characters now.

Polares

So Devs have basically broken champion levels and removed the chances of getting rewards from those, and turned this game even more into a lotery. People that was lucky will be even more far ahead than before but unlicky people are even more screwed!

Great.

Really great.

You see, right now just 5s interest me, but when I get a 4 that I have championed (I have 23, so it is a good chance) I get more rewards so makes not pulling a 5 not that bad. Now, this is has been almost completely removed, from the 14 4s I have just 4 champed! So I will have to sell A LOT of covers for iso.

JablesMc

I'm just spitballing here, but, is all of this what the "Nothing makes sense" was teasing?

smkspy

When on gf's account where she only has 3 of the current 12 fours rostered. This pretty much kills any forward progression she had when it came to 4s.

Pylgrim

whycantwesyncpc wrote:

I'm just about to go into the 4* transition, and of the ones I have rostered none of them are fully covered let alone champed. Taking them away is completely 100% unacceptable.

Solution: pick one of the characters that are closer to be max-covered and you look the most forward to play with and make it a favourite. So instead of getting a smattering of 4*s that you may or may not care for, who are close or not to be max-covered, you get a good 4* of your choice max covered and champed much more quickly than you would have before. Then pick the next one you'd like to champ and so on. This will increase your competitiveness at much higher rates that complete randomness allowed in the past. All while getting more quickly fully covered the newer 4*s which include some of the best characters in the game!

whitecat31

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

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.

Sure except 1:7 is now 14.25%. That bonus 5 star cover makes up that 0.75% difference.

fanghoul

aesthetocyst wrote:

smkspy wrote:

When on gf's account where she only has 3 of the current 12 fours rostered. This pretty much kills any forward progression she had when it came to 4s.

Hrrm? This should accelerate her progress on those 12 4s, particularly the ones she doesn't have. Now nearly 4x more likely to draw them!

And if she has older 4*s she wants to work on, have her pick the 2 older 4*s as her favorites.

Boom.

At 1/40 odds of one of those being a bonus character drawn, she is now progressing with those two characters slightly faster than before the change.