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

NewMcG

n25philly wrote:

New McG wrote:

n25philly wrote:

It's just plain bad business.

And that can be true for you. It isn't a universal truth. I've got plenty of older 4* I can use more covers for, but I'll trade "I have to cover them via bonus covers" for "I can actually cover new characters after they release". The 20ish most recent 4* which mostly lie somewhere between 5-10 covers, leaving them basically unusable, would have benefited greatly from this being implemented a year ago.

As I asked many times, other than as a cash grab is there one actual reason why they have to take away more than half the characters to do this?

Because people will complain regardless, and whatever philosophy they're using for where the game is going works for them under this new method. If they did new 4 and 5* in the latest legendaries, and old 4 and 5* in the classic legendaries, some people would still be complaining to the effect of "well, I want only the old 4*, but I only want the new 5*? Why are you ruining my ability to build the exact roster I want?" There's no winning, particularly on this message board. The vocal minority on the forums aren't their typical players, and as such, shouldn't be the sole driving force behind their decisions.

n25philly

New McG wrote:

n25philly wrote:

New McG wrote:

n25philly wrote:

It's just plain bad business.

And that can be true for you. It isn't a universal truth. I've got plenty of older 4* I can use more covers for, but I'll trade "I have to cover them via bonus covers" for "I can actually cover new characters after they release". The 20ish most recent 4* which mostly lie somewhere between 5-10 covers, leaving them basically unusable, would have benefited greatly from this being implemented a year ago.

As I asked many times, other than as a cash grab is there one actual reason why they have to take away more than half the characters to do this?

Because people will complain regardless, and whatever philosophy they're using for where the game is going works for them under this new method. If they did new 4 and 5* in the latest legendaries, and old 4 and 5* in the classic legendaries, some people would still be complaining to the effect of "well, I want only the old 4*, but I only want the new 5*? Why are you ruining my ability to build the exact roster I want?" There's no winning, particularly on this message board. The vocal minority on the forums aren't their typical players, and as such, shouldn't be the sole driving force behind their decisions.

I'm willing to bet good money that the people for vaulting is the minority.

Crowl

New McG wrote:

Because people will complain regardless, and whatever philosophy they're using for where the game is going works for them under this new method. If they did new 4 and 5* in the latest legendaries, and old 4 and 5* in the classic legendaries, some people would still be complaining to the effect of "well, I want only the old 4*, but I only want the new 5*? Why are you ruining my ability to build the exact roster I want?" There's no winning, particularly on this message board. The vocal minority on the forums aren't their typical players, and as such, shouldn't be the sole driving force behind their decisions.

Obvious solution, they offer two versions of each token, one with the full roster of characters and one with the drastically truncated version.

As far as their philosophy, it is most likely due to them misunderstanding the reasons behind people hoarding LT and CP before spending them all in one go on latest legendaries tokens, they think it is just about getting the newest characters when it is about getting top tier characters covered in a timely fashion. This rationale would also apply to some of the new characters, but not all or even many of them as the quality of 4*s are far more variable.

Crowl

n25philly wrote:

I'm willing to bet good money that the people for vaulting is the minority.

You might lose that bet, plenty of people have been blinded by the bonus heroes and getting newer ones covered more readily parts of these changes to fully realise all the implications on things like championing and xp gain for SCL levels.

n25philly

Crowl wrote:

n25philly wrote:

I'm willing to bet good money that the people for vaulting is the minority.

You might lose that bet, plenty of people have been blinded by the bonus heroes and getting newer ones covered more readily parts of these changes to fully realise all the implications on things like championing and xp gain for SCL levels.

On the forums maybe, although there is plenty of negativity as well. I know in my alliance which is about half new players that many are early in their 3* transition many are not happy that they will likely never get a lot of characters.

Jaedenkaal

Crowl wrote:

Jaedenkaal wrote:

You had an 85/44 = 1.931818% chance of getting a Cyclops cover every time you opened a legendary token. On average that means you would have to open 673 legendary tokens before you would get 13 Cyclops covers. (you'd also have 13 covers for every other 4*, plus ~101 5* covers, on average).

That's not taking into account dilution of odds by the addition of a new 4* every two weeks. If you don't start until there are 50 4*s in tokens, now you have to open ~765 legendary tokens.

Anyways, starting yesterday, as a new player with no 4* cyclops covers, you can select him as your favourite 4*. Now you only need to open ~306 legendary tokens before you get 13 bonus 4* covers, which are all Cyclops. That's less than half. (you'll also get about 22 covers of each of the 12 newest 4*s and about 48 5* covers, which includes 2-3 from bonus covers)

And those odds never change as new 4*s are added.

Those odds ignore all the other characters that you would also be collecting at a similar rate to cyclops though, if the newest 12 were clearly all top tier then this would be less of an issue, but while some are great, others are mediocre and the wasp is one of the worst in the game.

Mmm nope, they're right in there. In fact, in the previous system it was meaningless to say that you were "collecting cyclops" through tokens because you'd get him at the same rate as everyone else. What you were doing was "collecting everyone", and the first one to hit champion first had way more to do with the variations in distribution or in which placement and progression rewards you earned (and this is still true, I suspect).

New system; I've also demonstrated that you'll get about 260 covers for the 12 characters available in the tokens at the time. If you hoard up and do them all at once you'll get about 22 covers for each of the 12 characters available at the time; if you do it over more than 2 weeks, you'll get a standard distribution of covers based on how long they were in the list while you were drawing, still 260 covers and still no more than 22 for any one character (on average).

Jaedenkaal

n25philly wrote:

Crowl wrote:

n25philly wrote:

I'm willing to bet good money that the people for vaulting is the minority.

You might lose that bet, plenty of people have been blinded by the bonus heroes and getting newer ones covered more readily parts of these changes to fully realise all the implications on things like championing and xp gain for SCL levels.

On the forums maybe, although there is plenty of negativity as well. I know in my alliance which is about half new players that many are early in their 3* transition many are not happy that they will likely never get a lot of characters.

Well never fear. At a certain SCL (I forget which one, but surely not higher than 4-5) they'll get a different 3* cover as a reward in every PVE event. Assuming D3 cycles those characters pretty evenly (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise) and assuming an average event duration of 4 days they'll clear the whole 3* tier in 24 weeks, less than half a year. Nevermind that they'll still get 3*s from taco tokens and 2* champion rewards. And as soon as you have 1 cover of a 3* character, you can get one more every 42 (currently) days from DDQ.

Vhailorx

New McG wrote:

Because people will complain regardless, and whatever philosophy they're using for where the game is going works for them under this new method. If they did new 4 and 5* in the latest legendaries, and old 4 and 5* in the classic legendaries, some people would still be complaining to the effect of "well, I want only the old 4*, but I only want the new 5*? Why are you ruining my ability to build the exact roster I want?" There's no winning, particularly on this message board. The vocal minority on the forums aren't their typical players, and as such, shouldn't be the sole driving force behind their decisions.

Enough with the "this message board is so whiny!" meme. This is a forum on invested stakeholders on the internet. It will have people who are passionate about the game (both pro and con) and a share of internet trolls. That's the way the world works. It doesn't mean that the forum is useless or doesn't matter.

As for this change itself, I think GurlBYE is on the right track. Everyone likes the favorites system. Who wouldn't, it's 5% more covers of our choice. That's great! this game has been absolutely desperate for such a mechanic for years.

The problem is tying that very positive change to the new character vaulting system. Dilution was a real issue. But bonus heroes would go a long way towards mitigating it. Why then ALSO make this massive change to the way tokens work? (A change that just happens to appear likely to substantially slow down the rate at which vets can get their older champs up into the 340+ 4* champ promise land, and also makes long term hoard much less efficient.) Demi is fiddling with a lot of different levers all at once, and IMO the most rational explanation for makings changes this way is that they want to obfuscate of the more player-unfriendly changes by doing everything at the same time.

NewMcG

Vhailorx wrote:

The problem is tying that very positive change to the new character vaulting system. Dilution was a real issue. But bonus heroes would go a long way towards mitigating it. Why then ALSO make this massive change to the way tokens work? (A change that just happens to appear likely to substantially slow down the rate at which vets can get their older champs up into the 340+ 4* champ promise land, and also makes long term hoard much less efficient.) Demi is fiddling with a lot of different levers all at once, and IMO the most rational explanation for makings changes this way is that they want to obfuscate of the more player-unfriendly changes by doing everything at the same time.

The choice was between "keep a diluted 4* token pool" and "limit it by vaulting older 4*" They picked a side, and it allows for focused fire toward roster building.

Imagine the outcry if they implement bonus characters, keep the token pool the same as it was, and then someone draws a 6th or greater cover on a non-covered 4* from a legendary, and then get a bonus cover that's also fits that description. It would be "what's the point of bonus covers if they're as useless as the diluted tokens we get them from?"

Jaedenkaal

Vhailorx wrote:

New McG wrote:

Because people will complain regardless, and whatever philosophy they're using for where the game is going works for them under this new method. If they did new 4 and 5* in the latest legendaries, and old 4 and 5* in the classic legendaries, some people would still be complaining to the effect of "well, I want only the old 4*, but I only want the new 5*? Why are you ruining my ability to build the exact roster I want?" There's no winning, particularly on this message board. The vocal minority on the forums aren't their typical players, and as such, shouldn't be the sole driving force behind their decisions.

Enough with the "this message board is so whiny!" meme. This is a forum on invested stakeholders on the internet. It will have people who are passionate about the game (both pro and con) and a share of internet trolls. That's the way the world works. It doesn't mean that the forum is useless or doesn't matter.

As for this change itself, I think GurlBYE is on the right track. Everyone likes the favorites system. Who wouldn't, it's 5% more covers of our choice. That's great! this game has been absolutely desperate for such a mechanic for years.

The problem is tying that very positive change to the new character vaulting system. Dilution was a real issue. But bonus heroes would go a long way towards mitigating it. Why then ALSO make this massive change to the way tokens work? (A change that just happens to appear likely to substantially slow down the rate at which vets can get their older champs up into the 340+ 4* champ promise land, and also makes long term hoard much less efficient.) Demi is fiddling with a lot of different levers all at once, and IMO the most rational explanation for makings changes this way is that they want to obfuscate of the more player-unfriendly changes by doing everything at the same time.

Well I don't agree with that last part. And you can still get your older champions up to 340, one at a time, faster than you could before. As a whole, yes, it's slower.

I definitely agree that the vaulting system does seem very much at odds with the very successful championing feature, which I'm pretty confident in saying has been the most well-received major feature they've introduced.

It will all rest on the acquisition rate of 4* covers from tokens vs from vaults, progression, and placement. I'd have to go back and look at my 4*s pretty carefully, and I doubt I can remember where I got all of those covers from. I know for all the new ones (since Peggy, probably), since they added 4*s as progression rewards in PVE, a large percentage of my 4* covers for those characters have been from that. And another significant percentage from PVP simulator. Boss events are also pretty generous in the 4* cover department (are they typically new-12 covers? Maybe. Not always. Rulk comes to mind).

NewMcG

aesthetocyst wrote:

New McG wrote:

Imagine the outcry if they implement bonus characters, keep the token pool the same as it was, and then someone draws a 6th or greater cover on a non-covered 4* from a legendary, and then get a bonus cover that's also fits that description. It would be "what's the point of bonus covers if they're as useless as the diluted tokens we get them from?"

That's still quite possible. Nothing about this changes prevents it.

It is possible. But there's also a much greater chance that someone has 5 covers in a given color of an old 4* than one of the current dozen.

fmftint

aesthetocyst wrote:

New McG wrote:

Imagine the outcry if they implement bonus characters, keep the token pool the same as it was, and then someone draws a 6th or greater cover on a non-covered 4* from a legendary, and then get a bonus cover that's also fits that description. It would be "what's the point of bonus covers if they're as useless as the diluted tokens we get them from?"

That's still quite possible. Nothing about this changes prevents it.

I know several who've got a bonus 5 of a character/color that they already have at 5
It can happen at all tier levels

Jaedenkaal

New McG wrote:

aesthetocyst wrote:

New McG wrote:

Imagine the outcry if they implement bonus characters, keep the token pool the same as it was, and then someone draws a 6th or greater cover on a non-covered 4* from a legendary, and then get a bonus cover that's also fits that description. It would be "what's the point of bonus covers if they're as useless as the diluted tokens we get them from?"

That's still quite possible. Nothing about this changes prevents it.

It is possible. But there's also a much greater chance that someone has 5 covers in a given color of an old 4* than one of the current dozen.

Uh... well, it's more likely that they'll have more covers overall of older 4*s, which would result in having more old 4* with 5 covers in one color compared to new ones.

That's not very comforting to the (statistically existent) players out there staring at their 5/0/0 Medusa and their 0/5/0 Mordo (or whatever).

I wonder if it would help if the bonus cover was guaranteed to be in a color that wouldn't be redundant. Wouldn't make a difference to champions of course, but it would make targeted championing much less painful. Too good for 5*s? Maybe. Too hard to take everything into account? Possibly, since the RNG likely can't know what you have on the vine, as it were.

NewMcG

fmftint wrote:

aesthetocyst wrote:

New McG wrote:

Imagine the outcry if they implement bonus characters, keep the token pool the same as it was, and then someone draws a 6th or greater cover on a non-covered 4* from a legendary, and then get a bonus cover that's also fits that description. It would be "what's the point of bonus covers if they're as useless as the diluted tokens we get them from?"

That's still quite possible. Nothing about this changes prevents it.

I know several who've got a bonus 5 of a character/color that they already have at 5

I would also add the stipulation "if you pick a bonus character that may kick you a bonus cover you can't use, that's really just the stupid tax being paid".

Jaedenkaal

New McG wrote:

fmftint wrote:

aesthetocyst wrote:

New McG wrote:

Imagine the outcry if they implement bonus characters, keep the token pool the same as it was, and then someone draws a 6th or greater cover on a non-covered 4* from a legendary, and then get a bonus cover that's also fits that description. It would be "what's the point of bonus covers if they're as useless as the diluted tokens we get them from?"

That's still quite possible. Nothing about this changes prevents it.

I know several who've got a bonus 5 of a character/color that they already have at 5

I would also add the stipulation "if you pick a bonus character that may kick you a bonus cover you can't use, that's really just the stupid tax being paid".

If that's the only character you really want, it's no worse than before. It's still more covers of that character than you would see previously.

NewMcG

Jaedenkaal wrote:

Uh... well, it's more likely that they'll have more covers overall of older 4*s, which would result in having more old 4* with 5 covers in one color compared to new ones.

That's not very comforting to the (statistically existent) players out there staring at their 5/0/0 Medusa and their 0/5/0 Mordo (or whatever).

Right, I know it does exist with newer as well. (As someone who often gets 2 covers of a new release plus an alliance cover, it rarely fails that I'm sitting at 0/1/3 on new characters after the first progression giveaway. The front-loading of new toon covers is real.) But I have no shortage of older 4s with 5 in SOME cover, and in several cases, two of them at 5. Those aren't going to be my priority for placing in the bonus character pool when I have plenty that don't have any certain colors above 4.

NewMcG

Jaedenkaal wrote:

If that's the only character you really want, it's no worse than before. It's still more covers of that character than you would see previously.

Sure, but now if it's the actual ONLY character you want, you've got a 1/20 chance of at least guaranteeing it's their cover, (color not guaranteed), and not the 1/40+ chance that previously existed every time that pulsing gold cover animation popped up. (Color also not guaranteed.)

firethorne

Jaedenkaal wrote:

If that's the only character you really want, it's no worse than before. It's still more covers of that character than you would see previously.

Which is a considerable If to contend with. Provided you have only one or two favorites, you'll do better. But, if you do have more than that, the odds get considerably worse than before. So, if you want champ levels for a lot of oldies but goodies, like Iceman, 4Thor, Teen Jean, Hulkbuster, and Starlord, your odds are actually now worse off.

Math: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=60335

Jaedenkaal

firethorne wrote:

Jaedenkaal wrote:

If that's the only character you really want, it's no worse than before. It's still more covers of that character than you would see previously.

Which is a considerable If to contend with. Provided you have only one or two favorites, you'll do better. But, if you do have more than that, the odds get considerably worse than before. So, if you want champ levels for a lot of oldies but goodies, like Iceman, 4Thor, Teen Jean, Hulkbuster, and Starlord, your odds are actually now worse off.

Math: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=60335

Yup. From tokens. There's still no (publicised) change to the rates of those covers in rewards from vaults/progression/placement etc...

But yes. It'll be a faster ride, for fewer characters.

NewMcG

firethorne wrote:

Jaedenkaal wrote:

If that's the only character you really want, it's no worse than before. It's still more covers of that character than you would see previously.

Which is a considerable If to contend with. Provided you have only one or two favorites, you'll do better. But, if you do have more than that, the odds get considerably worse than before. So, if you want champ levels for a lot of oldies but goodies, like Iceman, 4Thor, Teen Jean, Hulkbuster, and Starlord, your odds are actually now worse off.

Math: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=60335

Or you just go one at a time, get them to where you want and/or the risk tradeoff gets where you want (I have Iceman at 3/5/3 blue, so right now he's behind my 4/3/3 Peggy and 4/4/2 Medusa on the bonus rotation, since their bonus covers are sure things still.) There's still randomness inherent to the system, but you can at least take that second level of randomness and focus it.