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

Crowl

jredd wrote:

obvious solution: put the new characters in 'latest' legends and the rest in 'classic' legends. take the classics out of latest. it's right there in the names. let us decide what we want to do.

break classics up into 2 separate 'vaults' if needs be. or at worst, but still better than getting rid of them, rotate characters in and out.

Obvious but fairly terrible solution, 5* is the top tier and the split between classic and latest makes sense for them, but for 4* they should give people the option of the newest or the full roster regardless of which 5*s they might prefer.

Daredevil217

fanghoul wrote:

Well, if they're looking into it, I hope they keep in mind some of us liked the vaulting. It's been my favorite week of classic legends draws ever so far.

If they do the most suggested fix (limiting vaulting to latest), then aside from the 5* you could have had the exact same concentrated pulls drawing from latest and the large majority of the player base would be happier not having a large majority of the characters they've been working on walled off. Seems like a fair compromise.

Quebbster

JHawkInc wrote:

Tony Foot wrote:

Thanks and I'm right that the oldest are at the bottom? So they should drop off the bottom of the list?

No.

Newest four characters are Agent Coulson, Mordo, Riri Williams, and Captain Marvel, and they are clearly not the top row. And I'm pretty sure Peggy is the oldest, and next to go.

Riri and Carol are in the top row in the table in the OP of this thread. It is out of date as Mordo and Coulson are now in the tokens too, bumping out Kate Bishop and Moon Knight. Peggy is the oldest fourstar available in tokens this season.

TeamStewie

I'm just curious why there are so many more 3 stars available than 4 stars. There are only 12 4 stars as opposed to 20 3 stars. Maybe if there were as many 4 stars in the pool as 3s people wouldn't already have a ton of the new 4 stars with 5 covers. Maybe have the same number for both but rotate the last 8 4s so people aren't getting hammered with the same covers over and over?

Crowl

TeamStewie wrote:

I'm just curious why there are so many more 3 stars available than 4 stars. There are only 12 4 stars as opposed to 20 3 stars. Maybe if there were as many 4 stars in the pool as 3s people wouldn't already have a ton of the new 4 stars with 5 covers. Maybe have the same number for both but rotate the last 8 4s so people aren't getting hammered with the same covers over and over?

Their reasoning with that might be along the lines of you get far more 3* covers so you can cope with a larger pool of possible results before dilution is an issue.

ClydeFrog76

Whale assistants playing MPQ

That's the best thing I've heard in ages.

MarkersMake

There's a very easy solution to vaulting that makes everyone happy (I'm sure it must have been suggested already, but 46 pages is a lot to wade through): customizable tokens.

Not fully custom tokens; customizable tokens.

Take the current 4* token with the latest 12. Keep feeding new 4*s in, and removing the oldest. But give players control of 3 of those character slots. Want to replace Riri with Rulk? Go for it. Agent Venom with Venom (Eddie Brock)? Well, I won't stop you. Mordo with Iceman? Ha, so will I!

This way, players get more control over who they pull, the effects of dilution are reduced, pull rates (of desired older characters) are increased (3 out of 12 chance - amazing!), and d3 still gets to push their newest characters without forcing the occasional dud on us. And if you want to farm champ levels on older characters, you can!

Implementation issues aside, who loses? A popular definition of compromise is one in which nobody is happy, but who would honestly be unhappy with that, and why (aside from the obvious "everyone who champed their Rulk/Iceman/etc the normal way")?

killercool

MarkersMake wrote:

There's a very easy solution to vaulting that makes everyone happy (I'm sure it must have been suggested already, but 46 pages is a lot to wade through): customizable tokens.

Not fully custom tokens; customizable tokens.

Take the current 4* token with the latest 12. Keep feeding new 4*s in, and removing the oldest. But give players control of 3 of those character slots. Want to replace Riri with Rulk? Go for it. Agent Venom with Venom (Eddie Brock)? Well, I won't stop you. Mordo with Iceman? Ha, so will I!

This way, players get more control over who they pull, the effects of dilution are reduced, pull rates (of desired older characters) are increased (3 out of 12 chance - amazing!), and d3 still gets to push their newest characters without forcing the occasional dud on us. And if you want to farm champ levels on older characters, you can!

Implementation issues aside, who loses? A popular definition of compromise is one in which nobody is happy, but who would honestly be unhappy with that, and why (aside from the obvious "everyone who champed their Rulk/Iceman/etc the normal way")?

No, the problem is in the investment that players make across the scope of 4*. This gives you 3 selections out of the crazy number of vaulted 4*s. Many people have champed the mid and low tier 4*s as an investment and vaulting them destroys that investment.

MarkersMake

killercool wrote:

No, the problem is in the investment that players make across the scope of 4*. This gives you 3 selections out of the crazy number of vaulted 4*s. Many people have champed the mid and low tier 4*s as an investment and vaulting them destroys that investment.

The investment is for the champ rewards, right? And those rewards get better and better at higher champ levels, right?

So your argument is that you would rather have your champ levels distributed across a bunch of low level champs, rather than focusing them on a few selected characters to reap higher level rewards (let alone the pvp/PvE benefits)?

Remember, they invested in those characters because there was no better choice. This is (arguably) a better choice.

Sunk costs are sunk costs.

EDIT - I didn't consider the impact on the Crash portion of DDQ. That could definitely be a negative factor. I'd say it's outweighed by the ability to build specific characters more quickly, but I respect that some might disagree.

Crowl

MarkersMake wrote:

killercool wrote:

No, the problem is in the investment that players make across the scope of 4*. This gives you 3 selections out of the crazy number of vaulted 4*s. Many people have champed the mid and low tier 4*s as an investment and vaulting them destroys that investment.

The investment is for the champ rewards, right? And those rewards get better and better at higher champ levels, right?

So your argument is that you would rather have your champ levels distributed across a bunch of low level champs, rather than focusing them on a few selected characters to reap higher level rewards (let alone the pvp/PvE benefits)?

Remember, they invested in those characters because there was no better choice. This is (arguably) a better choice.

Sunk costs are sunk costs.

It is not just the size of the champion rewards that is the reason for having a broad roster, it is about minimising the chances of wasting covers or being forced to horde for much longer, with a drastically reduced pool of possible covers you are far more likely to end up with lopsided characters where one or two colours are maxed or several end up with max covers at the same time. A reward system where for much of it your best option is to not take your rewards is a deeply flawed system.

Xzasxz

Over 900 posts. most from the people not happy with the vaulting. And what D3 says? Nothing! Never in my gaming life I felt so irrelevant for the gamemakers. They do not give a **** of what people think/want/write as long as whales are happy. That's what I see.

Tony_Foot

Xzasxz wrote:

Over 900 posts. most from the people not happy with the vaulting. And what D3 says? Nothing! Never in my gaming life I felt so irrelevant for the gamemakers. They do not give a **** of what people think/want/write as long as whales are happy. That's what I see.

They had said something, they have said they are discussing it internally and going through it the thread and feedback. If they throw a fix together within a week and it's wrong you would be even more annoyed. Let's give them some time to decide and make the right fix.

Magic

Tony Foot wrote:

Xzasxz wrote:

Over 900 posts. most from the people not happy with the vaulting. And what D3 says? Nothing! Never in my gaming life I felt so irrelevant for the gamemakers. They do not give a **** of what people think/want/write as long as whales are happy. That's what I see.

They had said something, they have said they are discussing it internally and going through it the thread and feedback. If they throw a fix together within a week and it's wrong you would be even more annoyed. Let's give them some time to decide and make the right fix.

They can work on a fix for 5 weeks if they have to for all I care. But they should talk to the community and inform us that they are working on a fix. That would mean they admit that the current situation is wrong (straight admitting it is wrong is probably out of the question). Or they should tell us - no, we are not going to change anything. Or tell us: for the next 7 weeks we will be gathering data and we will reassess at that point.

You see what I am saying? Feedback! We are asking for quick feedback, not quick fix. We want to know (or I want to know if I am the only one) if they plan to do something about it and when. I don't need it to happen today. But I would like to know if and when it will happen.

Quebbster

Magic wrote:

Tony Foot wrote:

Xzasxz wrote:

Over 900 posts. most from the people not happy with the vaulting. And what D3 says? Nothing! Never in my gaming life I felt so irrelevant for the gamemakers. They do not give a **** of what people think/want/write as long as whales are happy. That's what I see.

They had said something, they have said they are discussing it internally and going through it the thread and feedback. If they throw a fix together within a week and it's wrong you would be even more annoyed. Let's give them some time to decide and make the right fix.

They can work on a fix for 5 weeks if they have to for all I care. But they should talk to the community and inform us that they are working on a fix. That would mean they admit that the current situation is wrong (straight admitting it is wrong is probably out of the question). Or they should tell us - no, we are not going to change anything. Or tell us: for the next 7 weeks we will be gathering data and we will reassess at that point.

You see what I am saying? Feedback! We are asking for quick feedback, not quick fix. We want to know (or I want to know if I am the only one) if they plan to do something about it and when. I don't need it to happen today. But I would like to know if and when it will happen.

We have gotten feedback:

Brigby wrote:

Hi Everyone. Rest assured, we have certainly not forgotten about this topic. Having said that though, it is a complicated and multilayered one that requires time and attention in order to address it in the best way possible.

We're carefully going through all the feedback the community has provided, and we will be discussing this in depth with the development team. Once there is news I can announce, I'll be sure to update the community.

Since D3 tend to play their cards Close to the vest (with good reason) I suspect the only feedback they could leave at this Point is "We're still discussing it" or "We may have an idea about a fix but can't implement it for a while yet". I don't expect to be informed about their plans until they are ready to launch, and that may still be a while away.

Magic

Quebbster wrote:

Since D3 tend to play their cards Close to the vest (with good reason) I suspect the only feedback they could leave at this Point is "We're still discussing it" or "We may have an idea about a fix but can't implement it for a while yet". I don't expect to be informed about their plans until they are ready to launch, and that may still be a while away.

I understand your point. My issue is - I doubt we will get a fix and/or feedback (see the case Nr123 - People VS Boss rush for details). But I do enjoy a pleasant surprise when I get one.

It's been a week. I am calling the community managers to speak about it with the community they are managing. And if they know already we will not be getting a fix (soon or in more distant future) they should inform the player base about. Everybody would be able to make an educated decision on how to deal with the situation. Without that interaction we are looking at them trying to wait us out and move on.

I don't want to go into politics with this but I hate such an approach from people with power (and I see it first hand in my home country, therefore my "allergic" reaction to the current situation).

broll

Quebbster wrote:

Since D3 tend to play their cards Close to the vest (with good reason)

Can you explain the 'good reason'? They aren't dealing with state secrets here, they are developing features for a game people play while they poop... If they were more open with discussing their plans and getting feedback, wouldn't that serve to prevent issues exactly like this? They probably spent 6 months or more developing this system just to have it blow up in their face because their players don't like a major competent of it. Had they brought this up sooner we could have blown up about this month ago before they wasted so much time...

kyo28

alphabeta wrote:

This isn't development its throwing mud against a wall and seeing what sticks.

haha, couldn't have said it better.

moss04

Quebbster wrote:

they are developing features for a game people play while they poop...

Is it normal to poop 2-4 hours a day?

MarkersMake

Crowl wrote:

It is not just the size of the champion rewards that is the reason for having a broad roster, it is about minimising the chances of wasting covers or being forced to horde for much longer, with a drastically reduced pool of possible covers you are far more likely to end up with lopsided characters where one or two colours are maxed or several end up with max covers at the same time. A reward system where for much of it your best option is to not take your rewards is a deeply flawed system.

The reason hoarding is an optimal strategy has nothing to do with vaulting. It is a consequence of the cover expiry mechanism.

Hoarding compresses your pulls into a shorter timeframe so that you have a chance to champ characters before their duplicate covers expire. After all, if covers never expired, people wouldn't bother to hoard at all.

Vaulting does the same thing - it reduces the expected number of pulls between covers for a particular character. With vaulting, you have a reasonable chance to pull the right colour cover to let you champion a character before the covers you have dying on the vine expire. The odds of that happening with a straight pull from all 4*s is ludicrous.

The combination of hoarding and vaulting provides much better odds of fully covering a character, and minimizing wasted covers. Do you have to save up ISO first? Well, of course - but that was true before vaulting too.

Regardless, my post wasn't an attempt to defend vaulting per se (although it has somewhat turned into that). It was an attempt to modify the vaulting system to permit people to exercise greater control over their pulls, and to let them cover the characters they want to develop - not *just* the most recent twelve.

broll

moss04 wrote:

Broll wrote:

they are developing features for a game people play while they poop...

Is it normal to poop 2-4 hours a day?

Depends on your diet
(Also fixed your quote)

That statement was in jest at that's what app games largely are. Things people play while waiting for something or in the bathroom or just need to kill time. Most of the people on the forums are people that take it way more seriously than that, but I suspect a large portion of their player-base is in that category.