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

ZeroKarma

Polares wrote:

Now we are FORCED to champ chars like Wasp, Luke, Riri, Spiderwoman, Blade, etc if we want those rewards (and waste a ton of iso in some of those). And at the current speed of releases you will never be able to get them above 320 where is when they are useful again to 5 players and where the best champion rewards are.

We are loosing A LOT of iso, HP and Cps because of this.

And we are forced to hoard again so we can get the iso to champ those chars. I don't want to hoard! I was following the rule of always having half of the 4s champed before opening LTs. Now, I am obviously down this number. Really annoying.

Again, I see this change as a complete kick in the balls for veterans. Man, every single thing they do is against their veterans. Seriously.

Completely agree with Polares. There are two subsets of players excited by this change, and we have heard from one. For the recent 4* transitioners this is their chance to get a focused group of 4* leveled and champed.

The other group is superwhales and they are pleased because, as some have mentioned, they no longer need covers for earlier 4* they have at level 370.

There is an ocean of players between those two levels, and we are all annoyed to pissed at the change. I went from being able to use 85% of my draws from LT's to less than 50%. That is AWFUL! And the only way to get back to that level is 2 million+ ISO and champing characters outside of any reasonable priority order.

Wumpushunter

Is it unusual for such a long controversial thread to go unanswered by someone in authority? I am new here and wondering if d3 will actually respond to board controversy?

funeralthirst7

I hate this change. Seriously hate it. This is the change that may end up pushing me away from the game. I'm on day 1217. 4 championed 5*, 37 championed 4*, and all but Thanos championed for my 3*. I was at a point where the vast majority of token pulls would produce something worthwhile for me. Rare was the draw that would be discarded. I would champion my characters based on the order in which covers were obtained. When I drew a cover ten days ago for Spidergwen she became the next champion. Raced for the iso and didn't waste the cover. It was a system that was working for me.

Under the new system, I can only pull 12 different 4*s, of which I only have 5 championed. The rest are either going to prompt a race or just discarding the cover. At some point I'm going to just care less and less and play more casually until I say screw it and walk away.

I really don't see the upside here for veterans. This is great for new players and whales but the rest of us are left out. This could have been great if the older 4* were just moved into classics and we could have had a choice.

D3: one step forward, two steps back.

funeralthirst7

Wumpushunter wrote:

Is it unusual for such a long controversial thread to go unanswered by someone in authority? I am new here and wondering if d3 will actually respond to board controversy?

Not really unusual at all.

Ludaa

Guys, guys, GUYS! Just set your FAVORITES and bam, all problems solved! I set my favorites yesterday and my boss gave me a promotion, someone stole the wheels on my truck and replaced em with 20's, and my once lost dog from childhood showed up at my doorstep. I friggin love Bonus Heroes!

Vhailorx

Wumpushunter wrote:

Is it unusual for such a long controversial thread to go unanswered by someone in authority? I am new here and wondering if d3 will actually respond to board controversy?

This thread seems fairly tame by "controversial thread" standards on this board. No one has started the ad hominem attacks yet, or really busted out the 'tinykitty's.

And it's only 25 pages. I think the baking thead was pushing 50, and the true healing thread back in 2014 was more than 100 pages iirc.

Polares

This change is so dumb! If they want to please super whales they can have the 12 latest 4s in latest LTs and particular stores LTs, but at least leave classic with all 4s.

Personally I would not vault 4s in any token, but I could understand changing latest to please super whales, but not changing both!!! Super whales dont buy classic, so it is a change that just hurts a ton of players because they want to hurt us.

Always the same, add something that can be good (even though bonus heroes still is too much luck dependent), and then do something really bad. And they do it together to mask the bad thing to some players.

Why not just add bonus and see how it goes? No they had to do both together. Man fremium games/devs are the worst...

Moon Roach

Here's another idea.

Remove all but the most recent 12 4* from the game, as essential characters, as rewards, as everything.

Let us sell them at increased rates as we can when characters are nerfed / enhanced.

When a new 4* gets added to the tokens, the oldest 4* drops out and can be sold at increased rates.

That's a Friday afternoon (at least here) suggestion that makes at least as much sense as what has been implemented.

Tintaiwan

AGAIN

if you want to get developers attention * star their game in the android/itunes store.

They look at those. Because it effects their downloads and ratings.

I put one star review up as soon as I realized that they were cutting the token character list, and state they plan to keep rotating out characters, making them harder to get.

So if you want them to listen review low. and let them know why there. I can't guarantee they read this, but I bet they read most * star reviews.

Brigby

funeralthirst7 wrote:

Wumpushunter wrote:

Is it unusual for such a long controversial thread to go unanswered by someone in authority? I am new here and wondering if d3 will actually respond to board controversy?

Not really unusual at all.

It's more so we're trying to get through the immense amount of information being presented to us in this, so far, 25-page-long thread, and process it all so we can figure out how to accurately address it.

We're definitely not trying to avoid touching base on this topic. It's just that we want to be as well-informed as possible of the community's concerns before doing so.

firethorne

Brigby wrote:

funeralthirst7 wrote:

Wumpushunter wrote:

Is it unusual for such a long controversial thread to go unanswered by someone in authority? I am new here and wondering if d3 will actually respond to board controversy?

Not really unusual at all.

It's more so we're trying to get through the immense amount of information being presented to us in this, so far, 25-page-long thread, and process it all so we can figure out how to accurately address it.

We're definitely not trying to avoid touching base on this topic. It's just that we want to be as well-informed as possible of the community's concerns before doing so.

Well, here's the information that I want considered. The new vaulting is incredibly detrimental of you're interested in more than one old character. Look at it like this... Under the old system, 45 draws should get you one of each character. Sure, RNG doesn't work like that, and you'll end up with 2 of one and 0 of another. But, over the long haul, it evens out.

But now, if you want an old vaulted character, you can get one out of every twenty draws. So if you want two characters, it takes 40 draws to get one of each. If you want three, 60 draws to get one of each. For 4, 80 draws for one of each. And so on. For every one character you're interested in that is now vaulted, you add 20 draws to get one of each. The system gets exponentially worse with every additional vaulted character you need. How was that deemed acceptable?

KGB

firethorne wrote:

Brigby wrote:

funeralthirst7 wrote:

Wumpushunter wrote:

Is it unusual for such a long controversial thread to go unanswered by someone in authority? I am new here and wondering if d3 will actually respond to board controversy?

Not really unusual at all.

It's more so we're trying to get through the immense amount of information being presented to us in this, so far, 25-page-long thread, and process it all so we can figure out how to accurately address it.

We're definitely not trying to avoid touching base on this topic. It's just that we want to be as well-informed as possible of the community's concerns before doing so.

Well, here's the information that I want considered. The new vaulting is incredibly detrimental of you're interested in more than one old character. Look at it like this... Under the old system, 45 draws should get you one of each character. Sure, RNG doesn't work like that, and you'll end up with 2 of one and 0 of another. But, over the long haul, it evens out.

But now, if you want an old vaulted character, you can get one out of every twenty draws. So if you want two characters, it takes 40 draws to get one of each. If you want three, 60 draws to get one of each. For 4, 80 draws for one of each. And so on. For every one character you're interested in that is now vaulted, you add 20 draws to get one of each. The system gets exponentially worse with every additional vaulted character you need. How was that deemed acceptable?

Nice and succinctly stated.

The system could be improved a lot by simply rotating the characters every season. So the 20 3*s would flip every season. The 4* would rotate on a 4 season basis (first 12 released, second 12 released, third 12 released, latest 12 released and as more 4* get introduced over time the 12 could become 13 when there are 52 4* and so on).

That way someone who wanted older characters could simply wait until the appropriate season to open tokens.

KGB

monsieurmojo

Vhailorx wrote:

Wumpushunter wrote:

Is it unusual for such a long controversial thread to go unanswered by someone in authority? I am new here and wondering if d3 will actually respond to board controversy?

This thread seems fairly tame by "controversial thread" standards on this board. No one has started the ad hominem attacks yet, or really busted out the 'tinykitty's.

And it's only 25 pages. I think the baking thead was pushing 50, and the true healing thread back in 2014 was more than 100 pages iirc.

Yeah, the Boss Rush thread was a respectable 42 pages.

killercool

KGB wrote:

Nice and succinctly stated.

The system could be improved a lot by simply rotating the characters every season. So the 20 3*s would flip every season. The 4* would rotate on a 4 season basis (first 12 released, second 12 released, third 12 released, latest 12 released and as more 4* get introduced over time the 12 could become 13 when there are 52 4* and so on).

That way someone who wanted older characters could simply wait until the appropriate season to open tokens.

KGB

This seems to be one of the main areas of concern. There is a sense that the door is slamming on a large portion of the 4* tier with no option to see them rotated back into future packs. So the only way to get an older 4* is to target it to the exclusion of the other old 4*s. It really leaves alot of the folks that have champed mid and lower tier 4* characters feeling cheated out of millions of iso-8.

GurlBYE

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".

Or characters that it is not possible to cover any other way, pretty plain and simple.

For my 5/0/5 hulkbuster and 5/05 carnage. thats the only road i've got, when that time comes.

Unless one of their pves is coming up. I mean all 4's do get 1 pve event very 43 or so.

Wumpushunter

Brigby wrote:

funeralthirst7 wrote:

Wumpushunter wrote:

Is it unusual for such a long controversial thread to go unanswered by someone in authority? I am new here and wondering if d3 will actually respond to board controversy?

Not really unusual at all.

It's more so we're trying to get through the immense amount of information being presented to us in this, so far, 25-page-long thread, and process it all so we can figure out how to accurately address it.

We're definitely not trying to avoid touching base on this topic. It's just that we want to be as well-informed as possible of the community's concerns before doing so.

Thank you for your reply! Perhas you could make it so you could opt out of the bonus hero/vaulting system. I would rather have a lesser chance to get all characters, then a higher chance from a smaller list of characters some who are vastly under powered compared those not on the new lists.

n25philly

Brigby wrote:

funeralthirst7 wrote:

Wumpushunter wrote:

Is it unusual for such a long controversial thread to go unanswered by someone in authority? I am new here and wondering if d3 will actually respond to board controversy?

Not really unusual at all.

It's more so we're trying to get through the immense amount of information being presented to us in this, so far, 25-page-long thread, and process it all so we can figure out how to accurately address it.

We're definitely not trying to avoid touching base on this topic. It's just that we want to be as well-informed as possible of the community's concerns before doing so.

If major changes don't come, could the response please give some kind of explanation as to why so much has to be taken away from us to make this happen?

Omega Red

Lots of players here seem unwilling or unable to adapt to change. Back when the selling price for two star champs was boosted to 65,000 many saw it as an opportunity to accelerate progression through farming. It's been what, nine, ten months since that change and today, despite the evidence, we still have players refusing to farm because they don't want to spend over 10,000 HP in roster slots, not realizing how this is an investment, not an expense.

Then we had the death of cupcakes and a revamp of PVE. PVP sucks, but PVE was made easier and better rewarded (less clears, no need to play at multiple times of the day, four star in progression reward and more tokens) so I became a PVE player (previously I was sort of hybrid) and my progression has accelerated because of that.

Now we have this new set of changes and I decided to open 30 classic tokens today. I needed all the covers available in those tokens so there was no incentive to wait any longer. Thanks to this I just champed Peggy. Moon knight, Blade and Carol are now one cover shy of being completed. Last but not least, all my four characters but the newest are now usable, cover-wise. Now I'll fave four star characters that I already champed while I save iso. Once I have enough I'll simply fave whoever I want to champ next and the cover will come sooner.

I would advice, just take what the game gives you. If the game wants you to farm, farm. If the game rewards you more for playing PVE, play PVE. If the game wants you to cover the newest four stars, cover them. If the game wants you to control your progression, control it. The rules change all the time, but the smart player will always find a way to make them work in his favour.

Ayasugi-san

Except the game wants us to do contradictory things. It wants us to roster every 4 (PVE essentials, Behemoth Burrito) and to get all of them well covered (Crash of the Titans), but has severely limited our ability to acquire three fourths of the 4 s.

n25philly

Omega Red wrote:

Lots of players here seem unwilling or unable to adapt to change. Back when the selling price for two star champs was boosted to 65,000 many saw it as an opportunity to accelerate progression through farming. It's been what, nine, ten months since that change and today, despite the evidence, we still have players refusing to farm because they don't want to spend over 10,000 HP in roster slots, not realizing how this is an investment, not an expense.

Then we had the death of cupcakes and a revamp of PVE. PVP sucks, but PVE was made easier and better rewarded (less clears, no need to play at multiple times of the day, four star in progression reward and more tokens) so I became a PVE player (previously I was sort of hybrid) and my progression has accelerated because of that.

Now we have this new set of changes and I decided to open 30 classic tokens today. I needed all the covers available in those tokens so there was no incentive to wait any longer. Thanks to this I just champed Peggy. Moon knight, Blade and Carol are now one cover shy of being completed. Last but not least, all my four characters but the newest are now usable, cover-wise. Now I'll fave four star characters that I already champed while I save iso. Once I have enough I'll simply fave whoever I want to champ next and the cover will come sooner.

I would advice, just take what the game gives you. If the game wants you to farm, farm. If the game rewards you more for playing PVE, play PVE. If the game wants you to cover the newest four stars, cover them. If the game wants you to control your progression, control it. The rules change all the time, but the smart player will always find a way to make them work in his favour.

That is kind of the problem here, this goes against so much of the game. Farm? How are you supposed to farm when they take away more than half the characters? There are two nodes on DDQ based around having a leveling all 4* characters. So the answer is to take away your ability to get those characters...

If just mindlessly following is the answer maybe they should pick a direction to go first?