New Feature: Bonus Heroes! *Updated (3/1/17)
Comments
-
After 502 days playing this game I have 8 freshly championed 4
. None of them in the packs. Goodbye further advancing.
I have 15 heroes sitting at 10+ covers. Hulkbuster, Red Hulk, Deadpool, Thor (to mention just some of them) among them. How many of them in the packs? Only 1! Thank You ******** much. How am I to gather missing covers?
12 4 heroes in the packs. Four of them considered ones of the weakest ones. Out of these 12, I am interested to collect only 3 of them, the rest is useless, 75% of them.
If there is over 40 (and more coming) heroes in game, why few people dictates all the players which ones they are going to play? Why You limit our choices? The big whales sitting on almost all 4 fully champed may be happy with the changes. I am not.
And I am not talking about 3 yet, where the situation may be similar for many players that started playing just few months ago. Wait, maybe not that many? Is the population shrinking? At least paying population? maybe only whales count atm? I hope I am wrong. I hope You will withdraw from this stupid idea.
One last thing. What diversity of rosters in the Versus mode You expect after couple of months? None? All the same (except big whales of the game)?.0 -
DayvBang wrote:
This also has the added benefit for both developers and players of probablyt being the single easiest fix to put in. If they decided it was the right answer, or even the right answer for a few months while hashing out other ideas, they could probably implement it in just days or even mere hours.Daredevil217 wrote:We the players have been discussing solutions all weekend and the one that seems to be getting the most universal praise, and that will help solve the problem you were trying to address (dilution) without impacting your bottom line (financially speaking) is to add the older vaulted legends to the classic packs and leave the newest in the latest packs.
Agreed. I think that's absolutely the best short term solution. Long term, I think the most is to have more than 2 CP packs.
25 CP - Latest, exactly the same as is in game now.
20 CP - Up and Coming, All 5* but the 3 latest, plus 12 middle aged 4*s
10/15 CP - Classics - 4* only pack containing any 4* not in the top 24/limited section.
What this would look like with today's characters:
0 -
Love this idea. It's similar to another idea I posted where I also said we needed more than 2CP Vaults. This really needs to happen, either in the form you suggested or a similar form!broll wrote:25 CP - Latest, exactly the same as is in game now.
20 CP - Up and Coming, All 5* but the 3 latest, plus 12 middle aged 4*s
10/15 CP - Classics - 4* only pack containing any 4* not in the top 24/limited section.0 -
kyo28 wrote:
Love this idea. It's similar to another idea I posted where I also said we needed more than 2CP Vaults. This really needs to happen, either in the form you suggested or a similar form!broll wrote:25 CP - Latest, exactly the same as is in game now.
20 CP - Up and Coming, All 5* but the 3 latest, plus 12 middle aged 4*s
10/15 CP - Classics - 4* only pack containing any 4* not in the top 24/limited section.
I added my idea to the suggestion area:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=606870 -
broll wrote:Agreed. I think that's absolutely the best short term solution. Long term, I think the most is to have more than 2 CP packs.
25 CP - Latest, exactly the same as is in game now.
20 CP - Up and Coming, All 5* but the 3 latest, plus 12 middle aged 4*s
10/15 CP - Classics - 4* only pack containing any 4* not in the top 24/limited section.
The obvious drawback to such a plan, plenty of people will want a broad range of 4*s in order to feed their steadily growing roster of champs and then they want a reasonable chance of getting the 5*s that they want, forcing people to abandon 5*s entirely or severely curtail their 4* roster development seems like as big a step backwards as the current vaulting system.
Latest legends should have two versions - one with all the 4*s and latest 5*s, one with just latest 4*s and 5*s.
Classics should have multiple versions (or generations) - each one should include all 4*s and 4 of the older 5*s (in chronological order) so the odds of getting what you want has improved but is still worse than latest legends.0 -
I think that the mechanic is convoluted as it is, plus is already accomplishing everything that it set off to do. The side-effect of diminishing the frequency of champion levels of old 4*s needs to be addressed on its own by another feature rather than by adding exceptions or riders to this feature. Example: Adding a Big Enchilada-like node to DDQ that rewards a different 4* every day (that you have to previously had) will increase the numbers of covers any given old 4* gets in a year back to the numbers that you could expect to open from tokens in a year or close.0
-
Sorry Broll but this has a making of even worse. In your proposed "middle" group there are only 3 4* worth the shot. I would not pull from there and that would limit my 5* progression to a full stop. No thanks.
We simply need a 4* token without 5* chance for 10 CP that has all the 4* (new and old). If you are not into 5* progression - you have a nice place to use the CP. Simple and elegant.0 -
Adding a new category of token for a 15 CP cost would force them to limit the amount of CP given out. They've just introduced Behemoth Burrito to increase that rate...0
-
CNash wrote:Adding a new category of token for a 15 CP cost would force them to limit the amount of CP given out. They've just introduced Behemoth Burrito to increase that rate...
It would put pressure to increase the rate of CP again. Here's why: CP are provided in order to up the chance of distributing 5* covers. (Bear with me, because yes it does other things.) If CP are going to purchases of just 4* heroes, then that is CP not being "rolled" for a chance at 5*, and the overall 5* transition rate in the community goes down.
In actuality there are many players who do not even *want* 5* characters because of the added roster cost, their minimal utility until covered and leveled, and the effects on scaling having them rostered brings. A 10/15 CP option for 4*-only pulls would only ensure no "extra" 5* are included and thus would be an attractive alternative (as well as cheaper!).
But!
D3 doesn't do guaranteed rewards much for anything except progression. It's much more likely that we could have a CP or token pull that draws from a 3*/4* mix, much as Elite tokens draw from only 2*/3*. Depending on percentages that would represent a good 10/15 CP investment, or could serve as a reward tier for SCL 9 and 10.
--Khanwulf0 -
Just listened to the Puzzle Warriors interview on the bonus heroes.
What I think is more telling is the small discussion around 5* in Vaults. They don't quite know how to put the 5* into vaults as they don't know how to price the vaults from the economics of the game as it stands. I think they're in the same boat with the vaulting.
Everything in the game has a value that's relative to other things. This is stating the obvious.
Right now, the economics of a Classic vs Latest token are that you pay a 5CP premium to get a chance at the latest 5*. The 4* pool available for 20CP was essentially consistent underneath that premium as you had the same pool in both.
They're attempting to keep that same rule in place in the current tokens. The 20CP (ignoring the 5CP latest 5* premium) you pay gets you a chance at the same pool of 4* regardless of which token you buy. As soon as that's changed then the value proposition of the 20CP is modified. If you change it to allow picking of certain 4* as has been suggested, should you be paying an additional premium CP? If you change the pool of 4*, should there be a discount on the older 4*, or should there be another premium on the latest 4*, turning a LL token into 30CP?
Playing Devils Advocate a little with this as I'm not suggesting a different solution, just posing the thoughts as to exactly why it's not as simple for them in the wider economics of the game to have a different pool of 4* offered for that flat 20CP.0 -
Punter1 wrote:Just listened to the Puzzle Warriors interview on the bonus heroes.
What I think is more telling is the small discussion around 5* in Vaults. They don't quite know how to put the 5* into vaults as they don't know how to price the vaults from the economics of the game as it stands. I think they're in the same boat with the vaulting.
Everything in the game has a value that's relative to other things. This is stating the obvious.
Right now, the economics of a Classic vs Latest token are that you pay a 5CP premium to get a chance at the latest 5*. The 4* pool available for 20CP was essentially consistent underneath that premium as you had the same pool in both.
They're attempting to keep that same rule in place in the current tokens. The 20CP (ignoring the 5CP latest 5* premium) you pay gets you a chance at the same pool of 4* regardless of which token you buy. As soon as that's changed then the value proposition of the 20CP is modified. If you change it to allow picking of certain 4* as has been suggested, should you be paying an additional premium CP? If you change the pool of 4*, should there be a discount on the older 4*, or should there be another premium on the latest 4*, turning a LL token into 30CP?
Playing Devils Advocate a little with this as I'm not suggesting a different solution, just posing the thoughts as to exactly why it's not as simple for them in the wider economics of the game to have a different pool of 4* offered for that flat 20CP.
Given how much players seem to really want that pool of old 4* characters in tokens it could even make sense to raise the value of a classic token back up to 25cp.0 -
Jaedenkaal wrote:Given how much players seem to really want that pool of old 4* characters in tokens it could even make sense to raise the value of a classic token back up to 25cp.
If you think that vaulting was badly received, just wait until you saw the response they would get if their fix to the issue would be to return to the previous token and increase the price by 25%.0 -
In case you weren't sure, your comment there happened to be out loud.Jaedenkaal wrote:Given how much players seem to really want that pool of old 4* characters in tokens it could even make sense to raise the value of a classic token back up to 25cp.
Every other comment you have made in this thread has been great btw
0 -
Punter1 wrote:Just listened to the Puzzle Warriors interview on the bonus heroes.
What I think is more telling is the small discussion around 5* in Vaults. They don't quite know how to put the 5* into vaults as they don't know how to price the vaults from the economics of the game as it stands. I think they're in the same boat with the vaulting.
Everything in the game has a value that's relative to other things. This is stating the obvious.
Right now, the economics of a Classic vs Latest token are that you pay a 5CP premium to get a chance at the latest 5*. The 4* pool available for 20CP was essentially consistent underneath that premium as you had the same pool in both.
They're attempting to keep that same rule in place in the current tokens. The 20CP (ignoring the 5CP latest 5* premium) you pay gets you a chance at the same pool of 4* regardless of which token you buy. As soon as that's changed then the value proposition of the 20CP is modified. If you change it to allow picking of certain 4* as has been suggested, should you be paying an additional premium CP? If you change the pool of 4*, should there be a discount on the older 4*, or should there be another premium on the latest 4*, turning a LL token into 30CP?
Playing Devils Advocate a little with this as I'm not suggesting a different solution, just posing the thoughts as to exactly why it's not as simple for them in the wider economics of the game to have a different pool of 4* offered for that flat 20CP.
One reason that the economics in the game are getting out of whack is due to the release rate of 4*s in a 5* world. From the perspective of heroic tokens and ranking rewards, 4*s are essentially being treated as though they were as valuable as they were before the release of 5*s. There have been some changes, but not anywhere near the sea change that we saw with 3*s a long time ago with the DDQ release and other changes. (Incidentally, ISO costs reflect that skewed priority as well).
That's why 4* dilution is such a big problem. Because the game structure (both rewards and ISO costs) hasn't kept up with the massive increase in 4*s, or with their relative decrease in importance. This vaulting change is a band-aid fix for the underlying issue, which is the constant release of 4* characters without supporting 4* content, treating the 4* tier like it's the top tier when everyone is looking to move past it to 5*s.
The fix to dilution should have been a significant increase in overall 4* rates, from both tokens and rewards. A big jump would be disruptive in the moment, but it would just be catching up to the present state of the game. That still needs to happen. Open up the floodgates for 4* covers the way they did with 3*s more than two years ago and let the game evolve.0 -
Rick OShay wrote:
In case you weren't sure, your comment there happened to be out loud.Jaedenkaal wrote:Given how much players seem to really want that pool of old 4* characters in tokens it could even make sense to raise the value of a classic token back up to 25cp.
Every other comment you have made in this thread has been great btw
Well thank you. I didn't say that was my opinion. I said it could make sense.0 -
Stax the Foyer wrote:One reason that the economics in the game are getting out of whack is due to the release rate of 4*s in a 5* world. From the perspective of heroic tokens and ranking rewards, 4*s are essentially being treated as though they were as valuable as they were before the release of 5*s. There have been some changes, but not anywhere near the sea change that we saw with 3*s a long time ago with the DDQ release and other changes. (Incidentally, ISO costs reflect that skewed priority as well).
That's why 4* dilution is such a big problem. Because the game structure (both rewards and ISO costs) hasn't kept up with the massive increase in 4*s, or with their relative decrease in importance. This vaulting change is a band-aid fix for the underlying issue, which is the constant release of 4* characters without supporting 4* content, treating the 4* tier like it's the top tier when everyone is looking to move past it to 5*s.
The fix to dilution should have been a significant increase in overall 4* rates, from both tokens and rewards. A big jump would be disruptive in the moment, but it would just be catching up to the present state of the game. That still needs to happen. Open up the floodgates for 4* covers the way they did with 3*s more than two years ago and let the game evolve.
I couldn't agree more. What you have witnessed is the system collapsing under its own weight. Its the unsustainable new character release rate turning around to bite them in the hind end. With every additional character added, the chance of getting any specific one kept getting smaller and smaller. Dilution paired with the problems of unusable covers could make it feel like you could go months without any upward mobility. But, of course the solution isn't to chop off all of the old characters and hope nobody notices. We need a true 4* ddq. We need the missing token tier of guaranteed 3*, chance at 4*.0 -
Is it time for Thanos' daily quest to make a permanent return and have a 4 only token?Stax the Foyer wrote:One reason that the economics in the game are getting out of whack is due to the release rate of 4*s in a 5* world. From the perspective of heroic tokens and ranking rewards, 4*s are essentially being treated as though they were as valuable as they were before the release of 5*s. There have been some changes, but not anywhere near the sea change that we saw with 3*s a long time ago with the DDQ release and other changes. (Incidentally, ISO costs reflect that skewed priority as well).
That's why 4* dilution is such a big problem. Because the game structure (both rewards and ISO costs) hasn't kept up with the massive increase in 4*s, or with their relative decrease in importance. This vaulting change is a band-aid fix for the underlying issue, which is the constant release of 4* characters without supporting 4* content, treating the 4* tier like it's the top tier when everyone is looking to move past it to 5*s.
The fix to dilution should have been a significant increase in overall 4* rates, from both tokens and rewards. A big jump would be disruptive in the moment, but it would just be catching up to the present state of the game. That still needs to happen. Open up the floodgates for 4* covers the way they did with 3*s more than two years ago and let the game evolve.
Yeah the lack of increase in the 4 star rate is entirely ridiculous.
I'm imagining whales aren't even reacting to 4's in a huge way anymore thanks to 5's so I can't see why they'd not loosen up a little on 4's and tighten ship a bit on 5's.
A huge cause of frustration in things like not having colorless covers at this point is the fact that 4's are becoming the common but rare unicorn.
I get a duplicate 2 or 3 cover on the way to a farm?
I know I'll get the color I need in a few pulls, possibly the next week or so for 3's?
4's and better? You're damn right when I have to jump through hoops to make the one I want appear I'm going to want them to be a color I can actually use.0 -
How about this:
keep tokens as they are. ie 12 newest 4*s and the curated 20 3*s
BUT change the way bonus heroes operate so that you still get a bonus chance for a favourite hero and also to include that hero as a possible non bonus draw.
So, if you wanted to favourite HB, you'd get the a 1:14 chance of pulling from 12+1=13 4*s and an additional bonus 1:20/1:12 chance of pulling HB.
Newbies get to razor focus on covering from a select pool of heroes as decided by D3
Vets get to "choose your own adventure" by choosing to dilute the pool by as many favourites as they want. Favourite an additional 28 heroes, you dilute your pool of 4*s so that you have an even chance of pulling 40 4*s and a slight bias of pulling your favourited 28 heroes as bonus pulls.
Best part is, you never have to pull another bag lady or non-agent venom if you don't want to. Personally I have 44/47 4* champs and would focus on covering new heroes at the start of the season and then diluting my pool of heroes once I have new heroes covered.0 -
kidicarus wrote:How about this:
keep tokens as they are. ie 12 newest 4*s and the curated 20 3*s
BUT change the way bonus heroes operate so that you still get a bonus chance for a favourite hero and also to include that hero as a possible non bonus draw.
So, if you wanted to favourite HB, you'd get the a 1:14 chance of pulling from 12+1=13 4*s and an additional bonus 1:20/1:12 chance of pulling HB.
Newbies get to razor focus on covering from a select pool of heroes as decided by D3
Vets get to "choose your own adventure" by choosing to dilute the pool by as many favourites as they want. Favourite an additional 28 heroes, you dilute your pool of 4*s so that you have an even chance of pulling 40 4*s and a slight bias of pulling your favourited 28 heroes as bonus pulls.
Best part is, you never have to pull another bag lady or non-agent venom if you don't want to. Personally I have 44/47 4* champs and would focus on covering new heroes at the start of the season and then diluting my pool of heroes once I have new heroes covered.
I think this ignores the biggest issue with vaulting, as it only works for one (or a very small number) of the vaulted 4*s. If you favorite all (or most) of the vaulted 4*s the chance of pulling one of the vaulted 4*s is vanishingly small compared to the latest 12. This largely invalidates the 4* champion system. It also means you get a flood of new 4* covers that people will not have sufficient ios-8 to level before they have to start selling off excess covers, whereas before there was a balance of older covers to feed your champs and new covers to diversify your roster.
I think that the majority of people are happy to allow D3 a significant amount of time to work out how to untangle the mess that has been created with the current vaulting model, but it would be nice if D3 were able to provide some sort of statement of intent in the mean time to let us know what their goals are.0 -
Stax the Foyer wrote:Punter1 wrote:Just listened to the Puzzle Warriors interview on the bonus heroes.
What I think is more telling is the small discussion around 5* in Vaults. They don't quite know how to put the 5* into vaults as they don't know how to price the vaults from the economics of the game as it stands. I think they're in the same boat with the vaulting.
Everything in the game has a value that's relative to other things. This is stating the obvious.
Right now, the economics of a Classic vs Latest token are that you pay a 5CP premium to get a chance at the latest 5*. The 4* pool available for 20CP was essentially consistent underneath that premium as you had the same pool in both.
They're attempting to keep that same rule in place in the current tokens. The 20CP (ignoring the 5CP latest 5* premium) you pay gets you a chance at the same pool of 4* regardless of which token you buy. As soon as that's changed then the value proposition of the 20CP is modified. If you change it to allow picking of certain 4* as has been suggested, should you be paying an additional premium CP? If you change the pool of 4*, should there be a discount on the older 4*, or should there be another premium on the latest 4*, turning a LL token into 30CP?
Playing Devils Advocate a little with this as I'm not suggesting a different solution, just posing the thoughts as to exactly why it's not as simple for them in the wider economics of the game to have a different pool of 4* offered for that flat 20CP.
One reason that the economics in the game are getting out of whack is due to the release rate of 4*s in a 5* world. From the perspective of heroic tokens and ranking rewards, 4*s are essentially being treated as though they were as valuable as they were before the release of 5*s. There have been some changes, but not anywhere near the sea change that we saw with 3*s a long time ago with the DDQ release and other changes. (Incidentally, ISO costs reflect that skewed priority as well).
That's why 4* dilution is such a big problem. Because the game structure (both rewards and ISO costs) hasn't kept up with the massive increase in 4*s, or with their relative decrease in importance. This vaulting change is a band-aid fix for the underlying issue, which is the constant release of 4* characters without supporting 4* content, treating the 4* tier like it's the top tier when everyone is looking to move past it to 5*s.
The fix to dilution should have been a significant increase in overall 4* rates, from both tokens and rewards. A big jump would be disruptive in the moment, but it would just be catching up to the present state of the game. That still needs to happen. Open up the floodgates for 4* covers the way they did with 3*s more than two years ago and let the game evolve.
They should do what they did last time, reduce the Iso Costs of leveling characters.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.9K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.3K MPQ General Discussion
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2K MPQ Character Discussion
- 171 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.3K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 6.2K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 13.7K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 508 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.4K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 99 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 424 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 300 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.7K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 381 Other Games
- 142 General Discussion
- 239 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements