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

monsieurmojo

carrion pigeons wrote:

I disagree.

In the long term is exactly where this change is good. You can say you want to champ all those characters so your pool is more dilute than before, but over the long term that won't stay true. You'll eventually pick up the covers you want (faster, even, and with more control than before, if you narrow down your choices to the ones you feel are highest priority and then, you know, just change your favorites after you've hit champ status), and then the character dilution won't be an issue anymore.

On the other hand, if they had kept going the way they were, then dilution was just going to get worse and worse for everyone. Long-term is exactly what the devs were thinking about, with this change.

Yes, you can keep pulling your favorites until you get those favorites championed (ideally, championed +1, so you at *least* get *a* legendary token from the now-nerfed 4* champion rewards system). Then you're basically going to be stuck, for years, with a bunch of 271-279 4* champions. The champion reward system is *heavily* backloaded, and 4* champions get significantly better with more levels. The only subset of the player base this is better for in the long-term is whales. For everybody else, it's a big nerf to older 4* champions. Sure, you'll pick up more covers for one or two of your choice. The opportunity cost of losing those levels for every other 4* isn't worth the "upgrade."

n25philly

kyo28 wrote:

carrion pigeons wrote:

I disagree.

In the long term is exactly where this change is good. You can say you want to champ all those characters so your pool is more dilute than before, but over the long term that won't stay true. You'll eventually pick up the covers you want (faster, even, and with more control than before, if you narrow down your choices to the ones you feel are highest priority and then, you know, just change your favorites after you've hit champ status), and then the character dilution won't be an issue anymore.

On the other hand, if they had kept going the way they were, then dilution was just going to get worse and worse for everyone. Long-term is exactly what the devs were thinking about, with this change.

I didn't say they needed to keep things as is, because rightfully so the packs were getting too crowded and diluting took place.

What I am saying is that reminding dilution by limiting players' choice is a poor design choice and not a very workable long-term solution.

Simply put, I think we can all agree that Iceman and Jean Grey are pretty high up the latter on the 4* power scaling. But now newer players are all but cut off from championing those and are forced to turn to 4*s like Riri, who can't hold a candle to those older 4*s. Where is long-term vision in that? Where is the fairness or balancing in that?

Taking away opportunities and choice from players is not a viable long-term solution.

Each is free to do as they want but I will from effective immediately not spend a single cent on this game as long as vaulting is in effect. There are plenty of ways to combat dilution without vaulting characters.

But, but, taking characters away adds choices, because, uh, reasons.

I mean yeah, you could favorite JG and iceman if you want them and you get a 2.5% chance to get a cover, well, that is if the rng inside of the rng likes you. You know because when someone defends it if gives out a bonus cover exactly 5% of the time, when it reality it's a crapshoot that could largely give you nothing like it has for a lot of people. But that is ok because we all no everyone says "I wish there was more rng!"

But since we have to assume it will give 5% of the time every time that means you will get 5 covers if you only draw 100 tokens! We're rolling in covers now!!!!! Of course now you have 100 covers for 12 characters, and we all know that the wonderful rng of the game won't give us any unusable covers out of that. Of course if you don't have those 12 characters rostered the magic HP fairy (aka your wallet) will be sure to help you out, because you know rng in rng is helpful for getting those champ rewards you need to get the resources to roster them....

WAIT! I know, lets sell JG and Iceman so we have roster spots available for those 12 characters because they are very special because there are, uh, uh, new? I don't know they must be special or why would they be the only ones available to us? Oh wait I'd better spend all of my iso on those two as they will no longer be special in a week, and better get them leveled and champed while they are special so after they no longer are I can no longer get any more champ levels for them because they are like all old now and why would we want to get rewards from something that is old. Old stuff is gross!

So now I have no HP, no ISO, but I've got a whole whopping 5 covers for JG and Iceman! Score!!!! I'd better go pull 2100 more legendary tokens so I can get the rest of the covers I would need to full cover them. Of course then I'll have 2100 covers spread over 12 characters, no hp, no iso and two new characters that I have tons of covers for that I can't roster. What other characters should I get rid of?! Wow, this is fun!!!!

Oh, right, we are not supposed to look at the reality of it and just blindly say how wonder this is because of, uh, reasons?

bluewolf

I had an analogy I thought of for the devs to consider. It seems evident that they do not play the game like forumites/highly engaged players. I do not expect them to: I assume they can play with fully levelled characters in a god mode whenever they want. Why spend time and money trying to build up to what they can just play around with?

Anyway, there is a series of articles by the CEO of Demiurge where he envisions MPQ like Netflix, offering new content that brings people back (and paying for it, of course) in a subscription-like model - which now exists somewhat with VIP.

So, Netflix has constantly cycling content - stuff leaves, stuff is added etc. The vaulting idea is kind of like this. (Netflix-produced/paid for does not leave, though.) If you have Netflix, I'm sure you have a queue. Maybe some Marvel shows are in there. You may be in the middle of a show right now.

Now, devs. Imagine you are into a show that you enjoy thoroughly (let's say Daredevil). You are looking forward to, this weekend, watching some more episodes. You avoid spoilers like crazy. Etc. Then you check your email during lunch. Netflix announces in an email: Starting today, all Marvel shows will not be available to watch by users, except at a random time, when you will get to watch an episode instead of a different show you selected. Approximately one of every 20 times.

But! I planned to watch Daredevil! Then Jessica Jones! Why can't I watch it when I want to? WHY DIDN'T I GET A LITTLE MORE WARNING???

This analogy is not perfect, but close. The RNG nature of the game makes true planning hard. I might argue that life makes watching your favorite shows hard sometimes too. Just food for thought and perspective about how this was rolled out.

Ludaa

I think highly champed old 4*s were overshadowing new releases. You can see just in this thread how many times Ice and Jean are mentioned. This change all but forces you to forget about them and look to the new one$ even if they stink. They didn't seem to think the last 1-2 years of work being vaulted would upset anyone, ha!

I'm "fortunate" enough to have 35 champed 4*s, so I'll live through this. The thing that stings for myself is they've cut off the road to high level champ rewards. Those are a huge boon to our resources.

The cover stores clearly have room for more buttons, put the old ones back in next to the new ones. Heck, disable the bonus heroes for the reverted packs if you must.

n25philly

By the way, since you guys are selling this new system as one of choice do you think that at any point you guys are going to comment on all of the negative choices you are forcing on us? For example, to progress in this new system I have to do one of the following:

1) be FORCED in to hording for the next year or more to be able to roster the new characters being FORCED on us and not being able to open tokens because there are too many new characters that are FORCED on us that I can't afford to roster?

2) be FORCED to sell numerous characters that I already have in my roster and don't want to lose, so I can roster these new characters that are being FORCED on us?

3) Pull tokens now but be FORCED to let lots and lots of covers rot because I have no way of rostering all these new characters that are being FORCED on us so most covers will be a waste (although maybe if the rng in the rng is kind I will get a cover or two that I want. A cover of two out of the probably hundreds I actually need, SCORE!)

4) be FORCED to constantly throw money at the game because the only way to progress is to purchase resources with real money because I am FORCED to concentrate on new characters that are FORCED on me and are FORCED to pull their covers to get the ones I actually want.

5) Throw my arms up in the air because this new system FORCES every last bit of fun out of this game by FORCING me to make bad and unfun choices and stop playing at all and take my time and money elsewhere (he choice I will take if you guys don't fix this disaster)

Is it just me or do all these choices I have due to your new system of choice involve FORCING a lot of bad decision and unfriendly game mechanics on me? Again, how is this not ruining the game and making it better again?

Crowl

Ludaa wrote:

I think highly champed old 4*s were overshadowing new releases. You can see just in this thread how many times Ice and Jean are mentioned. This change all but forces you to forget about them and look to the new one$ even if they stink. They didn't seem to think the last 1-2 years of work being vaulted would upset anyone, ha!

I'm "fortunate" enough to have 35 champed 4*s, so I'll live through this. The thing that stings for myself is they've cut off the road to high level champ rewards. Those are a huge boon to our resources.

The cover stores clearly have room for more buttons, put the old ones back in next to the new ones. Heck, disable the bonus heroes for the reverted packs if you must.

They needed to find mechanisms to speed up the rate at which new characters would become useful, but there are better ways than practically killing all progress on the existing characters, this vaulting could be applied to all other tokens than LTs, people would still have a regular influx of existing characters and the rate at which you gained the new ones would also be somewhat increased, another option would be to split existing characters into two groups (like they did with 3*s) and rotate one of those groups in and out alongside the latest 12.

As far as people mentioning Iceman and JG, they are just some of the many top tier characters that have been mentioned in the thread, but maybe they are particularly being mentioned as very good aoe is not a particular strength of the latest 12 as they have tended to go for more convoluted mechanisms to keep things fresh, but unfortunately if you want to be competitive in pve or pvp then you need speed from the characters you are using.

Vhailorx

carrion pigeons wrote:

kyo28 wrote:

--snip--

I disagree.

In the long term is exactly where this change is good. You can say you want to champ all those characters so your pool is more dilute than before, but over the long term that won't stay true. You'll eventually pick up the covers you want (faster, even, and with more control than before, if you narrow down your choices to the ones you feel are highest priority and then, you know, just change your favorites after you've hit champ status), and then the character dilution won't be an issue anymore.

On the other hand, if they had kept going the way they were, then dilution was just going to get worse and worse for everyone. Long-term is exactly what the devs were thinking about, with this change.

C'mon Carrion, do the math.

Kyo listed 8 classic 4*s that he/she wants to champ. At a 5% rate how is kyo ever supposed to cover them all before new and desirable 4*s fall out of the latest 12 and start adding to that list? Even if kyo narrows the favorite pool down to 2 4*s, it might still take 80+ LT pulls to get enough covers to champ those favorites. That's 80 covers for the newest 12 4*s just to finish 2 classics. So Kyo really needs enough iso to level and champ the newest 12, PLUS iso to champ her one or two favorites. And then kyo would need another 80 LTs to champ 2 more of his or her favorites.

And of course, just champing those characters may not be enough, what if Kyo wants them to hit 300 or 330 (where 4* champs really start to take off in terms of health and power damage)?

Yes it's nice to have control over a small 5% portion of our pulls. But almost 75% of the 4* tier has just been shoved into that 5%. It's pretty crowded in there; and it's only going to get worse.

Crowl

Vhailorx wrote:

Yes it's nice to have control over a small 5% portion of our pulls. But almost 75% of the 4* tier has just been shoved into that 5%. It's pretty crowded in there; and it's only going to get worse.

This is the essence of the problem, in isolation the bonus heroes part of these changes is a great step towards letting us focus a bit more on those we want the most, but vaulting simply goes way too far from what many now want after more than a year of the champion system.

NewMcG

n25philly wrote:

1) be FORCED
2) be FORCED
3) be FORCED
4) be FORCED
5) FORCING me

I think the worst part of my day is when the D3/Demiurge hit squad comes in and trains its rifles on me until I play the game for two hours.

Moon Roach

I did some number crunching on my current rosters, figuring out what percentage of 4* covers that I could draw would be immediately useful (*), compared to the good old days of last week.

For Moon Roach, out of the 129 possible covers (47 characters, no Coulson, Mordo, Howard or Devil) it was 116 (90%). Now it's 29 out of 36 (81%).

For Wolveroach, it was 96 out of 129 (74%), now it's 35 out of 36 (97%).

What prompted this? Wolveroach getting that 1 out of 36, a Moon Knight purple from the Kingpin Crash. He's 4/5/3 and level 240, so who knows, I might get to champion him before the cover expires.

(*) Champion level, or a colour that isn't already at 5. Of course it's more complex than this.

Update: Just got the 10-pack on Wolveroach's account, got a 4* (Gwenpool) and a bonus 4*. Of course I'd set up my only 4* favourite as Moon Knight. Of course it was purple. I'm all conflicted.

Update 2: Just got the heroic token rewards for the season, from one I got a 4* (Riri, 1000HP to roster), but also got a bonus, a useable Moon Knight. Moon Knight is championed. But that's only because I was lucky enough to get a 4* and then got a natural critical hit with my d20, and was lucky to not roll 1 or 2 on my d6.

WelcomeDeath

Cthulhu wrote:

Overall this is a way to fix how many characters were in the packs, pack dilution. Now, you have the latest characters and any number of bonus characters that you select to help determine your draw. My first pull, I was able to get 5 bonus covers of a character I hearted by opening a 40 pack. I know that's a lot of hero points for that particular pack. But the main thing is that now you select the covers that you want from all of the characters so it's more focused on what you need, rather then a huge number of all the characters you may or may not need.

Thank you all for the feedback, please continue to try it out and let me know what you think. I'll do my best to read more comments and answer any questions in this thread.

A couple things. You got 5 bonuses out of a single 40 pack. That's fantastic, but it's inconsistent. One of the major gripes about the 5* transition is that it is totally reliant upon RNG. You and I could both pull the same amount of tokens over a lifetime of mpq, but without some kind of streakbreaker for bad luck, if one is very lucky and the other very unlucky, one will be well ahead of the other. I know two players that I won't name, very different stories. One opened 3 tokens the day bonus heroes started. Pulled a 5* from and got a bonus 5. Pulled 2 4* from LT and got 2 bonus 4s. Pretty great right? Another player I know opened up 40+ LTs, hundreds of event tokens, and spent all his remaining hp on 3 (or 4? Cant remember right now) 40 packs. Not one bonus hero out of the lot.
So, yes, focused progress, but only IF you get lucky enough to get through 2! Rng gates. Buy a lottery ticket and win...another lottery ticket. Win on the second one and get the big prize.

Furthermore, it is now EASIER to cover a latest 5* out of LTs (odds 1 in 20) than it is to cover a classic 4* (odds 1 in 24) from the same pulls. Was this intended? Same idea, if you tried to whale LTs and get all the classics to 13 covers, youd need to pull about 9,360 tokens with cp. To cover all classic 5s youd need to pull 866 LTs at once. If you pulled the 9360 and had even distribution, youd have every classic 5* at level 550 and their dupes at 463....seem a little broken? In the very very long term I suppose this evens out, but thats a veeeeery long term goal.

I said in a different thread, i do think that vaulting needs to happen. Leaving everything in tokens will eventually lead to such dilution that youd never be able to cover anything, never mind adding champ levels. I also appreciate the need to feature the latest additions to mpq. Thats where the money is made, and thats what keeps the game fresh. Bonus heroes essentially allows us to create custom tokens of any character we choose so we can cover them specifically. Why not take it a step further? Keep the bonus pulls (nobodys stupid enough to turn down free pulls) and allow us to turn our own characters on and off. The store level would be a good place for it with the revision to how available characters are listed (photos not just names). Have a mandatory 12 4* and 20 3* (latest/featured) and the rest separate. Let us turn them off and on. Odds would never be better than they are now, and dilution would only be what you want it to be. Do it with classic 5*, too, with a minimum of 3 (or 4 or 5 if you want it to be less appealing than the latest 5s) It would still be some RNG, but a lot more controllable. It would still force latests and additional roster slots. It would let you try to cover the featured 4* of the week to compete (and drive cover sales!). Or to cover older 4* for crash of the titans, or the burrito, or pve, or...anything, with decent odds so that you could actually get it done. Thanks!

A_Wise_Man

Cthulhu wrote:

Overall this is a way to fix how many characters were in the packs, pack dilution. Now, you have the latest characters and any number of bonus characters that you select to help determine your draw. My first pull, I was able to get 5 bonus covers of a character I hearted by opening a 40 pack. I know that's a lot of hero points for that particular pack. But the main thing is that now you select the covers that you want from all of the characters so it's more focused on what you need, rather then a huge number of all the characters you may or may not need.

Thank you all for the feedback, please continue to try it out and let me know what you think. I'll do my best to read more comments and answer any questions in this thread.

Good for you? Thats over twice the advertised rate and well over the experiences tons of others are having, so thats probably not the best example. Better to use something closer to the guidelines. Like, "Hey, I just spent $200 on 3 40 packs and I got ONE cover on the 4 cyke I so desperately want! This is awesome!" See how that goes over.

Dayv

Cthulhu wrote:

Overall this is a way to fix how many characters were in the packs, pack dilution. Now, you have the latest characters and any number of bonus characters that you select to help determine your draw. My first pull, I was able to get 5 bonus covers of a character I hearted by opening a 40 pack. I know that's a lot of hero points for that particular pack. But the main thing is that now you select the covers that you want from all of the characters so it's more focused on what you need, rather then a huge number of all the characters you may or may not need.

Thanks to the champion system, which was almost universally well-received and has guided most of my roster decisions for the last year, there is a "huge number" of characters I need, and most of them are not just the last 6 months of releases!

I honestly can't tell whether D3 and Demiurge seriously thought that players would welcome with open arms a change to make 3/4 of of 4* covers far harder to get, or whether the corporate stance of "Bonus Heroes makes up for this inconvenience" is so mandated that people are forced to maintain this position no matter what or risk being out of a job.

Please make up your minds: is Bonus Heroes a great new additional set of rewards, or is it the tiny apology allowing us to rescue a very small portion of the older 4* characters from obscurity? It kinda feels like we're being given both answers, despite them being totally incompatible.

Dayv

A_Wise_Man wrote:

Cthulhu wrote:

Overall this is a way to fix how many characters were in the packs, pack dilution. Now, you have the latest characters and any number of bonus characters that you select to help determine your draw. My first pull, I was able to get 5 bonus covers of a character I hearted by opening a 40 pack. I know that's a lot of hero points for that particular pack. But the main thing is that now you select the covers that you want from all of the characters so it's more focused on what you need, rather then a huge number of all the characters you may or may not need.

Thank you all for the feedback, please continue to try it out and let me know what you think. I'll do my best to read more comments and answer any questions in this thread.

Good for you? Thats over twice the advertised rate and well over the experiences tons of others are having, so thats probably not the best example. Better to use something closer to the guidelines. Like, "Hey, I just spent $200 on 3 40 packs and I got ONE cover on the 4 cyke I so desperately want! This is awesome!" See how that goes over.

Yeah, and if Cthulhu had pulled less than the expected 3.2 bonus covers in a 40-pack, I suspect the anecdote wouldn't have come up at all.

Bonus Heroes are great, vaulting is terrible, and it's a little insulting to have the two conflated as if they were a single feature.

That said, Bonus Hero pulls having their tier dependent on the tier of the cover being rewarded is a weird design decision. It amplifies the existing luck of the player. A person who is drawing far fewer 3* and 4* covers than expected is also getting far fewer Bonus drops than the expected average, and a player who pulls an above average rate of 4* in Heroics and 5* in Legendary has an above average chance of getting bonus covers for those tiers. That's... an odd decision.

I would have expected Bonus Hero reward tiers to have been based on the token level pulled. Something like:

• Legendary Tokens: 5% chance of a 5* Bonus Hero
• Heroic Token: 5% chance of a 4* Bonus Hero
• Elite Token: 5% chance of a 3* Bonus Hero
• Standard Token: 2% chance of a 3* Bonus Hero

Of course I'm just spit-balling the numbers here, but that feels like a more fair system, and a simpler one. And you're far more likely to find people whose good and bad luck on token pulls and Bonus Hero rates balance each other a bit than you are someone who has legitimately great results in both or legitimately terrible ones in both.

Vhailorx

Cthulhu wrote:

Overall this is a way to fix how many characters were in the packs, pack dilution. --snip-- But the main thing is that now you select the covers that you want from all of the characters so it's more focused on what you need, rather then a huge number of all the characters you may or may not need.

That would be much more comforting if you hadn't designed the rest of the game to heavily incentivize me to need every character eventually. Champing rewards, champion sale prices, essential characters, ddq nodes, featured PVP events, and weekly boost lists are all mechanics that push players to roster and level every character in the 2*-4* tiers. So which are the characters that I may not need?

carrion_pigeons

DayvBang wrote:

Please make up your minds: is Bonus Heroes a great new additional set of rewards, or is it the tiny apology allowing us to rescue a very small portion of the older 4* characters from obscurity? It kinda feels like we're being given both answers, despite them being totally incompatible.

Why are they incompatible?

Tell me which statement you disagree with:
1) We get more 4* covers than ever before with Bonus Heroes active.
2) Bonus Heroes can be leveraged to obtain old covers.

Seems pretty compatible to me.

After all the exploding people have done on the forums, I'm still pretty unclear on exactly what the problem is supposed to be with this feature. Yes, it will slow you down in your effort to champ, say, Ant-Man. But Ant-Man wasn't ever a high priority character in the first place, and most people were content to let him sit on their roster for years, if necessary. He wasn't changing the way anyone played.

The old 4*s are full of characters that people didn't really care about. The news that you don't have to sink Iso into them now in order to take advantage of champ rewards in general ought to be good news. Those character were just filling space on rosters, acting as batteries. Now the batteries are still around but there's less than a third as many to have to worry about. Why is this not okay?

The high quality old characters can be farmed up faster than before. Don't tell me they can't. The impact of Bonus Heroes is enough that you can earn covers for a desired character at ~triple the old rate if you want (talking about 4*s specifically). And frankly there just aren't that many that matter. If you have an 8-cover War Machine or something you were excited to bring up, well, now you have a choice to make, but it isn't that different from the old choice that RNG made for you. The only real difference is that now you have to make a choice you know is suboptimal, if you want your War Machine champed, as opposed to letting RNG do it on your behalf.

Blergh

carrion pigeons wrote:

DayvBang wrote:

Tell me which statement you disagree with:
1) We get more 4* covers than ever before with Bonus Heroes active.
2) Bonus Heroes can be leveraged to obtain old covers.

I'd disagree with both.

As as consisted top 25 (and I'm being modest there) player in both PVE and PVP I get a good turn over of tokens and CP. So far I have had exactly 3 bonus heroes, 2 of which were three stars.

Of the four stars I have pulled, I had a blade red which is already at five. So a useless dupe. A Spider-Woman Purples which is already at five so again kind of useless. Another one for power-man I am going to have to sell as though that powers at five he has a whole colour category missing. I also had a 5 Gwenpool cover dupe, but at least I could champ her for 350,000 odd iso.

So I'd argue the bonus hero wouldn't be enough to cover the old covers to great effect.
I could also argue that I am getting less usable four star covers as they I have increased duplicate covers I can't apply. I'd get more covers that I did not have to sell under the old system. Even if I did cover the evenly to champ level it'd be more iso that I could make to champ them all consistently. So in effect I am getting less four covers than before.

That's my experience so far.

DFiPL

Cthulhu wrote:

I understand what your saying. You guys would like a pack of 4 stars that are all older 4 star covers and a pack of new 4 star covers, but what I'm saying is you can select the exact 4 stars you want to focus on and when you get a bonus cover it will be the exact cover you have hearted. Now you can select the 4 stars you want to work on, and get them as bonus draw, so if your working to get covers for a few older 4 stars, just select those few older 4 stars.

1) Thanks for stepping in to communicate with the forum, both on behalf of the playerbase, and for poor Brigby, who I don't think has been out on the pointy end of a forum uproar like this before.

2) "Covers for a few older 4 stars" might be one thing. "Covers for 75% of the 4* spread" is something else. Me? I'm in an okay place, because I had nearly all of the 4* rostered before this change, and of the 4* I have who can't win the Crash yet, most are newer. So my ability to continue to gain 4* covers isn't affected that much; WHO those covers are is, of course, but that's true of everybody. What isn't true of everybody is having nearly all of the 4* on hand already.

The impact there is the 2 CP daily in DDQ that they may not have yet been able to get, and now will have difficulty getting going forward.

The impact there is that there are now fewer avenues towards acquiring those covers, or towards covermaxing all but the latest 12 4*, for folks who haven't been playing for 2-3 years.

I'm completely okay with attacking token dilution by limiting the pool of 4* in the token. But limiting rotation to 'new in, old out' pushes the 4* tier into the same place the 5* tier is: get it while it's hot, because if you can't, you probably never will.

Yes, it's much less expensive to use CP to buy covers for 4* than it is for 5*, but the 4* tier is still being pushed into that same place, after all of the positive changes in the last 6-12 months to open up the availability of 4* covers.

Bonus Heroes, on its own, is a fantastic change. I have nothing but positive feelings for the ability to both get a bonus pull and control what that pull is.

But if you're going to address dilution by reducing the number of covers in the pool, there are all kinds of ways to do that that don't lock out 3/4 of the 4*.

You already have a structure with Latest and Classic Legendary tokens. You could put the 12 newest 4's and 3 newest 5's in the Latest and everything else in Classic. Of course, that still leaves the dilution issue that's been facing the older 5's. So...appropriate Classic for a new type of Legendary token. Select three older 5*, 12 older 4*, and rotate the characters in that token every season or so. Yeah, you're still 'benching' part of the 4* (and maybe 5*?) pool, but you give the playerbase clarity on when the best times are to chase the characters they're trying to cover, and, importantly, you give them the ability. I bet a combination of a rotating monthly "Classic" Legendary pack and Bonus Heroes would quell a significant part of the furor. You'd have bonus pulls; you'd have reduced dilution when the characters you're chasing get their turn in the token (with the added bonus of the playerbase feeling a little more in control since they could target their pulls); you'd still be able to push the newest characters in the Latest Legendaries; and the spend-CP-on-covers mechanic would still be in place for those who just gotta have it now.

kyo28

Tony Foot wrote:

carrion pigeons wrote:

The old 4*s are full of characters that people didn't really care about.

I'm sorry but speak for yourself. Rulk, Iceman, Jean Grey, Prof X, etc ... all characters we don't care about? They are the most prevalent in PVP nowadays!
Yeah, whales and longtime players who have them rostered and champed up to level 300 may not care, but a transitioning 3*-4* player like me cares a great deal about these characters!

Turn and twist it all you like, there is no, absolutely NO LOGICAL REASON not to have the older 4*s somewhere available in their own separate vault. Limiting Latest LT'S to new 4*s is one thing, but taking the older ones out of ALL the vaults? Give me ONE reason that validates this. Dilution isn't a valid reason as that is solved by taking them out of Latest LT'S already. Why can't they be in the Classic LT's? Or why can't there be a new vault or new vaults dedicated to older 4*s?

There is not reason whatsoever to take them out of rotation, none! I see only two explanations, both equally bad:
1. the dev's didn't realise the impact that this would have on players who are behind the curve. In which case, they are rather incompetent at their job, I'm sorry to say
2. the dev's did realise this but didn't care. They only cater to the whales who are the biggest revenue stream and this change caters perfectly to them but pushes players who are behing the curve even further down.

I don't know which option is worse, not realising or not caring. But it must be one of those two.

Not only are players who are behind the curve unable to rooster and build older 4*s at the rate they used to, it also prevents them from getting more Latest LT's because they won't be able to play Behemoth Burrito because guess what? It's the older 4*s that are in rotation there, not the newer ones.

I can't even begin to express the level of disappointment I feel towards the devs. Look at my roster in my sig and tel me this is a good change for me. You can't, because it's not.

And for the record, I pulled some 20 Latest LT's to check out the new system:
* Thanos: > yay!
* Spider-Woman: + > OK, it's an OK character. Not top of my list but not bottom
* Medusa : 3 + > Same as Spider-Woman
* Riri : 2 + > Boo! Lowest priority 4* in my roster of all 4*s!
* Peggy Carter : + > Yay! One of the few newer 4*s I'm really interested in!
* Blade : + + > not excited about this character
* Agent Venom : > same as Blade
* Gwenpool: 2 + > same as Blade
* MoonKnight : 0 covers > booo, one of the few new 4*s I'm interested in
* Bonus Heroes : 0 covers > booo!

So I got 1 5* I like, 2 4*s I'm really interested in and the rest is all but filler. 0 bonus heroes so 0 covers for my older 4*s I really, really want to champ.

Not feeling the love here, not at all!

whitecat31

Cthulhu wrote:

It's both. You get the new covers mixed with any selected 4 stars that you would like to get.

This is an attempt to allow you to choose what you want and have a better chance at getting what you want.

What I want, is the champion progression of the 20 something 4 star characters I invested millions of ISO into to mean something. Before, I had about a 50% chance of a four star cover to be worth something to me champion wise. Now, I have a 5% chance, plus whatever I have champed out of the current 12 available, which is not many.

Also, this selection of the new 4 star characters IGNORES the player base rating system of what we consider the top 10 Four stars. The only top 10 ten four stars in the selection of 12 characters is Peggy Carter, and Danvers (some people are iffy on that). Five of the 12 available are 5 of some of the worst available in Wasp, Venom, Luke Cage, Riri, and Gwen Pool (assuming you don't play with cheat sheets). Many players don't want to HAVE to invest ISO into these characters, or feel they have to invest ISO into these characters.