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

iron-n-wine

thanks Lytes - I am more PVE focussed, and thats true about the essential nodes (and for the new DDQ too), so its probably better to hold onto what I've got, and just open one at a time when I have the spare HP

Nepenthe

Brigby wrote:

*Updated post with an exclusive drop-rate breakdown from Demiurge's developer, Anthony.

I guess this explains how I got 3 bonus 3* heroes from only 10 elite tokens (apart from insane luck). Nice added value to the elites.

Please put the older 4*s back into some sort of token though, like Classic Legendaries, if not back into everything. Bonus Heroes update would have been a grand slam if not for limiting the pools of 3*s and 4*s like this.

Wumpushunter

So everyone so far that thinks this is a good idea has already championed a ton of characters but those who just started will almost never champion certain great characters. This is an unnecessary change and hurts my interest in continuing with this game.

whycantwesyncpc

Wumpushunter wrote:

So everyone so far that thinks this is a good idea has already championed a ton of characters but those who just started will almost never champion certain great characters. This is an unnecessary change and hurts my interest in continuing with this game.

The sad thing is that they could have so easily done this in a way that would have made everyone happy. Guess greed screws with judgement

Vhailorx

whycantwesyncpc wrote:

Wumpushunter wrote:

So everyone so far that thinks this is a good idea has already championed a ton of characters but those who just started will almost never champion certain great characters. This is an unnecessary change and hurts my interest in continuing with this game.

The sad thing is that they could have so easily done this in a way that would have made everyone happy. Guess greed screws with judgement

well, if by everyone you don't count the accountants at demi and d3 (and to be fair, the game does need to make $ to stay live).

and wumpushunter, fwiw, I have a bunch of 4* champs and am still pretty skeptical of this change overall. . . (#notallvets? )

whycantwesyncpc

Vhailorx wrote:

whycantwesyncpc wrote:

Wumpushunter wrote:

So everyone so far that thinks this is a good idea has already championed a ton of characters but those who just started will almost never champion certain great characters. This is an unnecessary change and hurts my interest in continuing with this game.

The sad thing is that they could have so easily done this in a way that would have made everyone happy. Guess greed screws with judgement

well, if by everyone you don't count the accountants at demi and d3 (and to be fair, the game does need to make $ to stay live).

and wumpushunter, fwiw, I have a bunch of 4* champs and am still pretty skeptical of this change overall. . . (#notallvets? )

There is a difference between paying the bills/making a profit and just being greedy. This is greedy. As long as this **** is going on they will never get a penny from me. I wish I could get some refunds as this is no longer the game I paid into.

zulux21

Wumpushunter wrote:

So everyone so far that thinks this is a good idea has already championed a ton of characters but those who just started will almost never champion certain great characters. This is an unnecessary change and hurts my interest in continuing with this game.

I'm a person without a single 4 star champ (to be fair I do have like 6 of them I have the covers I could champ) that finds this to be a great change as I will be able to get the characters I want much faster now *shrugs*

I'll take 1 in 20 odds I get a cover for the character I want to build over them being included in the normal draw at 1 in 40+ odds any day.

it's win win to me, better odds I get a cover for my most wanted character and better odds of being able to build up the new characters.

with my two star farm HP for roster space isn't an issue, and I am the type that tries to roster everyone anyways as the game from day one has always been roster everyone if you play PVE.

Nepenthe

Wumpushunter wrote:

So everyone so far that thinks this is a good idea has already championed a ton of characters but those who just started will almost never champion certain great characters. This is an unnecessary change and hurts my interest in continuing with this game.

I have championed a lot of characters (all 3*s, 36 4*s) and I don't think the limited character pool part of it is a good idea at all. I think most of the people who are defending that part of the change are severely overestimating how much the 5% bonus hero will compensate for older heroes not being in tokens anymore. And underestimating the value in pulling champ rewards for all those older heroes we already championed, even if they weren't the ones we would have picked as favorites.

fanghoul

Wumpushunter wrote:

So everyone so far that thinks this is a good idea has already championed a ton of characters but those who just started will almost never champion certain great characters. This is an unnecessary change and hurts my interest in continuing with this game.

I have three 4* characters championed, and I like this change. It's made it easier to champ exactly the ones that I like without drawing the garbage ones I don't.

whycantwesyncpc

Nepenthe wrote:

Wumpushunter wrote:

So everyone so far that thinks this is a good idea has already championed a ton of characters but those who just started will almost never champion certain great characters. This is an unnecessary change and hurts my interest in continuing with this game.

I have championed a lot of characters (all 3*s, 36 4*s) and I don't think the limited character pool part of it is a good idea at all. I think most of the people who are defending that part of the change are severely overestimating how much the 5% bonus hero will compensate for older heroes not being in tokens anymore. And underestimating the value in pulling champ rewards for all those older heroes we already championed, even if they weren't the ones we would have picked as favorites.

The thing is that there are different player in the game. Some are big marvel fans and want to play their favorite characters. Some enjoy the game itself more and just want to have the best characters whoever they are. Locking out characters is good for the first group and bad for the first. It has nothing to do with who is in your roster. This is bad for those of us who aren't in the rush to the end. I didn't even roster a since 4* until I actually had every 3* rostered. Hey, why care about those of us taking it slow when they can try and force us to buy roster slots.

Vhailorx

zulux21 wrote:

Wumpushunter wrote:

So everyone so far that thinks this is a good idea has already championed a ton of characters but those who just started will almost never champion certain great characters. This is an unnecessary change and hurts my interest in continuing with this game.

I'm a person without a single 4 star champ (to be fair I do have like 6 of them I have the covers I could champ) that finds this to be a great change as I will be able to get the characters I want much faster now *shrugs*

I'll take 1 in 20 odds I get a cover for the character I want to build over them being included in the normal draw at 1 in 40+ odds any day.

it's win win to me, better odds I get a cover for my most wanted character and better odds of being able to build up the new characters.

with my two star farm HP for roster space isn't an issue, and I am the type that tries to roster everyone anyways as the game from day one has always been roster everyone if you play PVE.

And greater odds of maxing new characters faster than you can champ them. And then having to sell covers instead of enjoying delicious 4* champ rewards. There are a lot of costs to this change that arent immediately obvious but will add up in the long run. And this game is all about the long run, so this stuff matters. . .

zulux21

whycantwesyncpc wrote:

The thing is that there are different player in the game. Some are big marvel fans and want to play their favorite characters. Some enjoy the game itself more and just want to have the best characters whoever they are. Locking out characters is good for the first group and bad for the first. It has nothing to do with who is in your roster. This is bad for those of us who aren't in the rush to the end. I didn't even roster a since 4* until I actually had every 3* rostered. Hey, why care about those of us taking it slow when they can try and force us to buy roster slots.

the plus side of taking it slow is that roster slots aren't an issue o.O
In general I rarely buy anything but roster spots with my HP.
back before champ levels it was strictly all I bought as it was hard to get enough hP to keep up with the character releases.
now thanks to the champ stuff I buy a few roster slots a month and can buy a few tokens as 2* farms give plenty of HP.

I'm a rather casual player usually only doing DDQ each day and every third event or so going for the 4 star progression from pve. even doing just that it's quite easy to get enough HP to buy 3-4 roster slots a month.

Vhailorx wrote:

zulux21 wrote:

Wumpushunter wrote:

So everyone so far that thinks this is a good idea has already championed a ton of characters but those who just started will almost never champion certain great characters. This is an unnecessary change and hurts my interest in continuing with this game.

I'm a person without a single 4 star champ (to be fair I do have like 6 of them I have the covers I could champ) that finds this to be a great change as I will be able to get the characters I want much faster now *shrugs*

I'll take 1 in 20 odds I get a cover for the character I want to build over them being included in the normal draw at 1 in 40+ odds any day.

it's win win to me, better odds I get a cover for my most wanted character and better odds of being able to build up the new characters.

with my two star farm HP for roster space isn't an issue, and I am the type that tries to roster everyone anyways as the game from day one has always been roster everyone if you play PVE.

And greater odds of maxing new characters faster than you can champ them. And then having to sell covers instead of enjoying delicious 4* champ rewards. There are a lot of costs to this change that arent immediately obvious but will add up in the long run. And this game is all about the long run, so this stuff matters. . .

So, champ the new characters before focusing on champing all of the old?

Aside from this initial period where there are suddenly 12 characters that have much higher odds it won't be much of an issue. and in general the new characters are more useful than most of the older ones anyways so you want to be focusing on champing them to remain competitive.

but sure you might miss out on a few champ rewards during the process, you will also however have more iso because of it since 5% of the time worst case you just get bonus iso in the form of a cover.

I mean missing champ rewards is sad, but at the same time everyone always complains that it is iso iso iso they need, and champ levels don't give you extra iso, just other things, this system does increase iso a bit as well as allow you to focus on certain characters.

in the long run this should be better for pretty much everyone. But hey that is just my view. I still won't give this company a penny due to them still screwing over steam users, but I really don't get the anger with this change. I suppose people just like to hate change.

broll

zulux21 wrote:

So, champ the new characters before focusing on champing all of the old?

That's the problem. This game is a never ending stream of new. There will never be a chance to focus on the old.

fanghoul

Vhailorx wrote:

And greater odds of maxing new characters faster than you can champ them. And then having to sell covers instead of enjoying delicious 4* champ rewards. There are a lot of costs to this change that arent immediately obvious but will add up in the long run. And this game is all about the long run, so this stuff matters. . .

Hmm, what actually are the odds of drawing the right 13 covers for a character while they're in the rotation?

Getting 2-3 covers is relatively easy from progression, event and occasionally PvP progression rewards. And a character is going to be in rotation for maybe 6 months right now?

Bah, I need to go to bed, not do statistical analysis of random variables. Maybe come back to this when I have a moment.

Pylgrim

whycantwesyncpc wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

whycantwesyncpc wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

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!

The closest I have is maybe 6 covers. I have almost none of the twelve chosen ones rostered and 100hp. I'm going to hit that progression brick wall really fast. Unbreaking the game would be a far better solution

If this is the case, your complaint makes even less sense. If the highest 4* you have has 6 covers, (and assuming a somewhat even distribution for sake of the argument), you'd first get one cover of every 4* in the game (an ever-increasing number), before you'd get the second of any given character. Meaning that to get your 6-covered 4* to 13 covers, it would take you a theoretical 315 or so 4* pulls or almost 4,500 heroic tokens (I'm also assuming that you don't get that many Legendary tokens at your roster current status). Obviously, randomness doesn't work like that and you could get it much earlier or much later, but the mean is good enough to draw conclusions.

On the other hand, under current circumstances, you could make that 6-covered character your favourite and get 7 covers from only 140 4* pulls or less than 2,000 heroic tokens.

As for roster slots for newer characters... well that always has been an issue and all I can tell you is that once you become more competitive (by, for example, champing more quickly some good 4*s) your HP flow will greatly increase to the point that you will actually start coming head.

EDIT: With Anthony's new clarification things look even better. It's not 5% of your 3* or 4* pulls but 5% of all your pulls, so, according to Anthony, more like 17% of your 3* and 4* pulls. With that figure, you'd get your 7 covers from only ~700 heroic tokens.

It's still pure stupid. I have almost none of the chose rostered. I have a large number of the earlier ones rostered. Actually being able to use covers pulled is better than drawing and letting them rot. Why would I want to champ a single 4*, it's just going to screw up scaling for the rest of my roster. Of course this is greedy devs trying to force us to pony up for hero points to roster the new characters. Pure greed, nothing else. If this was about making it easier to separate characters as things get diluted they wouldn't lock the old ones away. Why don't we just be honest about the flat out greed?

I'm going to have to ask you to explain exactly how your gameplan before this feature was better. As I just explained, going by pure chance, it would take you literal thousands of tokens to get a given 4* that you want to champ to 13 covers. (In all fairness, it's much less than that because we can also get covers from 3* champs and placement and progression rewards in events, but that's something that counts towards both models.) The only negative change that you can point to is that you now will feel "forced" to roster the newest 4*s since you'll be drawing them more regularly (solution: sell your old, bad 4* characters that have 2 or less covers to make room for them since you won't be able to randomly draw them anymore, anyway). Other than that, your gameplan towards transition has improved as you can surgically target which old 4*s you want to advance. Think that choosing only 1 will break your scaling? Then pick 3 or 5. It will be slower, but still, more reliable than the old method allowed.

Vhailorx wrote:

rixmith wrote:

This change looks great for me. I have all the older 4*'s champed, and now I can easily get the newer ones up to the level where they can win their DDQ and get champed. I've spend a couple hundred CP and pulled a bonus 5* and a bonus 4*, and gotten a bonus 3* from a LR Standard Token. So far it looks great to me.

Have you ever seen a 370 cyclops or Rulk? And when devastating at that level. Amd whem boosted FROM 370, they are easily better than any 5* in the game. Now even fewer players will ever have a chance to see a champ 4* above level 320, let alone 370. That is the downside to this change, and it's a very big one. Now there are clearly some upsides to this set of changes too.

Do you want a level 370 Rulk? Now it is EASIER to achieve that than before. Take a moment and do the maths for yourself and tell me the estimate of pulls you'd need to get a 100 Rulks under the old model. I'll wait. (And yes, I know that you mean more than just Rulk but still, ask yourself how many of the pulls towards max-champing Rulk and all the other good characters would be "wasted" on the characters that you don't really care that much for under the previous model.)

astrp3

Wumpushunter wrote:

So everyone so far that thinks this is a good idea has already championed a ton of characters but those who just started will almost never champion certain great characters. This is an unnecessary change and hurts my interest in continuing with this game.

I don't have any 4*s champed, or even usable, and I am OK with the change. I have about 30 4* rostered and the most covers I have for one of them is 8. There are only 4 I've never had a cover for (not counting Devil Dino - haven't been playing long enough to get him) but have never had a Hulkbuster cover, so the change couldincrease my chance of getting him.

It's not as good for me for the 3*s. I have half of them championed, but most of the ones I don't are in the bottom half, and the 20 in the stores are mostly in the top half, but I'm still OK with the change, since I can now get more covers for the two top-ten characters I haven't champed.

zulux21

broll wrote:

zulux21 wrote:

So, champ the new characters before focusing on champing all of the old?

That's the problem. This game is a never ending stream of new. There will never be a chance to focus on the old.

then only pay attention to the old you care about?
it's like the entire point of this change.

you can pick and choose which old characters you still care about and still get covers for them, at a slower rate than the new but you still get to ignore everyone you don't care about if you want to. (and if you only want covers for 1-2 4* this new system is faster than the old to get covers for them)

there are only a select few old characters that are really competitive, and as time goes on we will continue to get stronger and stronger new characters as they need to make people want them over the old. the focus has always been on the new, now you just have a choice on focusing the old.

Roguewookie26

So after reading the new breakdown. This is still one of the worst ideas in a long history if bad ideas by this game. They basically said in the breakdown they mislead everyone with the bonus cover percentages. Was that common core math? And all this 1 in 20 stuff sound great. But its an independant chance each time. You could pull 100 4* and never get a bonus cover. Its still all rng. This was the "big thing" that kept them from working on a pretty much game wide player request? Why not just give us a swap system or a colorless cover pull? Why not try just one time to make your player base happy and earn some much needed goodwill? Why does it always have to be like this? Youve already lost a big chuck of vets with your prior changes. And your not doing great on drawing new players in....maybe its time to listen to your players for a change. I agree with the previous posters. Im done spending on this game. If their desire is make people spend more they are going about ut in the exact opposite way they should be.

jredd

how are we to continue to add champ levels to characters who no longer appear in the token pool?

it's obviously still early here, but i'm really skeptical about this being a positive change.

you know what woulda been just fine and met with the approval of a large chunk of the player base? COLOURLESS COVERS!!

we've only been asking for these for how long now. and then we get this...

zulux21

Roguewookie26 wrote:

So after reading the new breakdown. This is still one of the worst ideas in a long history if bad ideas by this game. They basically said in the breakdown they mislead everyone with the bonus cover percentages. Was that common core math? And all this 1 in 20 stuff sound great. But its an independant chance each time. You could pull 100 4* and never get a bonus cover. .

its very basic math and called odds.
go buy a lotto scratch off ticket sometime. they will break down your odds there to saying that you have a 1:9 chance of getting $1 ect and like a 1:4.61 overall.

buying 5 tickets doesn't mean you will have at least one winner, it means over the entire run of the whole game that every 1 in 4.61 tickets you should have a winner. (aka if you had 461 total tickets in the run of the lotto game there would be 100 total winners spread out between all of them, and could have multiple winners in a row, or even a gap of 50+ losers)

it's just how lotto odds are done.
it's not suddenly different than having a 15% chance for a 5* as before, they just have it represented in odds instead of percent (for 5* they have 1 in 7 which is actually a little over 14% but still.

jredd wrote:

how are we to continue to add champ levels to characters who no longer appear in the token pool?

by making them a favorite character so when you get a bonus cover their cover will show up?