POLL: Your opinion on the Limited Characters from Tokens

GrimSkald

I'm very glad to see a variety of responses and that we've been keeping this all very civilized. I think the biggest issue I have is that I want to progress my 4*s relatively evenly - sure there are some that are better than others, but I only use 4*s, for the most part, when they are boosted. There's no way to predict who is boosted, so focusing on one or two (to the exclusion of the others,) is not so great.

Since I keep the data, I think on Monday I'm going to take three 4*s from various release dates before and during Legendary tokens and break down how many times I've pulled them. This will be somewhat enlightening on just how many levels a particular character owes to tokens, Legendary Tokens in particular. I suspect it's a lot.

amusingfoo1

I like this for latests. For classics and heroics? Not so much.

OneLastGambit

The intent behind the idea (addressing the much commented on issue of token dilution) was sound and welcomed.

The implementation is not as well considered as it could have been. Most people agree that having two token pools (like with the LT's) would have addressed the issue without restricting people and my own poll about token choices shows that people prefer old over new.

Another way to address the issue without altering any token pools at all would be the ability to apply greater odds to one character in each tier (which we know they can code into the game because we currently have it). That way would give players greater control over their progress, the would be able to focus more on one character if they chose to and would not have any limits whatsoever.

EDIT: I voted option 2

revskip

I like the new system. If I could make one change that would put it in the love this change category it would be splitting out a couple more token types for the older 4*s. Keep the current dynamic where both latest and classic only give out the newest twelve but add a new 4* token that excludes the newest 12 or even better several tokens with older characters rotating between them.

Natsufan01

Where's the " I don't care I just want to match 3 and develop my roster however I can." choice?

snlf25

n25philly wrote:

I'm all for a way to limit what is pulled for the people that need/want it. To take away more than half the characters for the ones that do want them is pure ****. Especially when their answer is to put them behind more rng. Bonus characters if a good idea, an option of limiting characters is a good idea, vaulting is pure toxic and I'm leaving the game if something isn't done about it soon.

I feel pretty much the same. I have 17 or 18 Championed 4*s now and I'm very upset about Vaulting. I remember how very much it sucked. I feel like a giant dump was taken on the road to my progression and I'm wearing white shoes.

Dayv

GrimSkald wrote:

Okay, so the thread on the "Bonus Heroes" change is a hot mess with 23 pages right now (reminds me of the "True Healing" thread,)

"True Healing" while very badly communicated and announced to players, was absolutely a good change for the game though. Team healers were far more valuable than the devs expected, to the point where it warped the way people played and what teams people fielded.

GrimSkald

DayvBang wrote:

GrimSkald wrote:

Okay, so the thread on the "Bonus Heroes" change is a hot mess with 23 pages right now (reminds me of the "True Healing" thread,)

"True Healing" while very badly communicated and announced to players, was absolutely a good change for the game though. Team healers were far more valuable than the devs expected, to the point where it warped the way people played and what teams people fielded.

Heh, that's fair, but that's not what I meant anyway - the thread went on and on and on forever.

For what it's worth, you're probably right, I do remember when OBW was pretty much required for any match up. The flip side of that is it destroyed what little value Spider-Man had left - he went from being one of the best 3*s to one of the worst. But we digress.

GurlBYE

Revamp.

It's too reliant on bonus heroes which has a ridiculously low occurrence in practice.

This change only at this point fully benefits 5 star players with all 4's at 370 who were, tired of free iso I guess?
Hell this doesn't even fully benefit them.

bigsmooth

I'm one of those players whose OCD leans towards a wide, deep roster rather than quickly leveling a few characters. I had all 2*s champed before I champed a 3*, I had all 3* champed before I champed a 4*. I'm obviously not too happy about the vaulting side of this change. I am in the early 4* transition and this effectively forces my hand into champing newer characters, since I will end up with lots of their covers any time I pull LTs. Meanwhile, older 4* characters (especially those with unfavorable builds like 5/0/5) are going to sit there untouched - in some cases, this could be for significant blocks of time.

The BH feature itself is clearly pretty fun (getting a bonus is a nice "woohoo", although it can still give you the "wrong" colored cover for non-champs). However, the devs obviously felt they needed a way to offset the slightly accelerated (albeit still random!) potential progress for a specific 4* hero by walling most of them off; I do think that the method they've chosen goes a bit too far.

I really think the Classic Legends pulls in particular will need to be adjusted; at the very least they should include a rotation of some of the older 4*. Alternatively, some other changes will need to be made in the game to help with 4* roster building (e.g. specific 4* in DDQ, new clearance levels with more 4* rewards, etc). Otherwise, I think the high level of frustration regarding vaulting that is being expressed on the forum will continue.

Alsmir

I'll give it a month or so. If it doesn't chnge I'm out.

I didn't like RNG and low chance to get usefull covers.
I don't like even worse odds right now.

I didn't like hoarding, because it felt like making no progess.
I hate drawing from the pool of characters that don't interest me at all, so I'm stuck with hoarding for now.

Feels like flipping the game upside down, without giving any explaination.

Crnch73

serious revamp. Here is why:

bonus characters were a good idea, if they had left everything else alone. While I do enjoy that I was able to max cover my Kate Bishop and I am close for Peggy, my other characters are falling drastically behind. I do believe they should seriously increase the drop rate for BH's, but I know that idea is for another thread. My idea for vaulting is similar to what someone else has already said.

In my opinion, the idea of vaulting is not the problem. The problem is that it is a permanent vault on certain characters unless they decide to change it back. So, what they are saying as developers is "we know you want more Carol covers, we hear you! The only way you can get more covers for her is if you never get another ice man!", etc. If they rotated every season, I could live with that. Take the 12 newest and then rotate a developer-chosen 8 others. This keeps half the pool involved, but also allows you to eventually cycle through to every 4*. Or, I also like the idea of you choosing your own group. This does not mean "I get to choose the top 12 characters in the game and only pull from those!" I believe we should have the option to choose predetermined pools. Group A has 12 characters, a mix of good/bad and old/new. Group B has a different set (maybe with some overlap). You choose which pool is available, that way you say "I really want a Red Hulk, and I am willing to risk getting an Eddie Brock for that chance!" Also, with these characters essentially removed from the game in terms of acquiring them... there goes champion levels for them as well. All of my champ 4* are "old", which means I may never get them to even see level 280.

To me, with this current vaulting, I have been debating if I should just sell any covers I don't want of characters that have been vaulted. Eddie Brock, Mr. F, Carnage, Drax... they are all taking up roster spots. If I can only get 1 cover of them per year basically? And even though they can be required, you can work around it and still get to the final CP progression reward in PVE. And the chance they might be needed in the new DDQ? 2CP won is not worth the roster spot in my opinion. I should just pocket the 1000 ISO, save future spends of 1k HP on roster spots, and move on. I obviously won't do this, because there is still hope this gets changed, but I could go through the next 5 or so new-release events and never spend any HP... which is enticing at the very least.

Jarvind

I voted "hate it."

Just have the bonus hero system, remove the new character restriction, and get rid of vaulting entirely. You can still focus on characters you want to cover, without being completely boned out of any reasonable chance of getting the old ones.

I don't know why it had to be any more complicated than that.

crackninja

Revamp - my biggest issue may actually be the way that this was implemented, not giving us a chance to use any LT's and CP's on the old system if we wanted to.
Beyond that, it is insane that I've been spending all this time gathering covers for characters that I would be best served giving up on overnight.
And finally, maybe because it seems far off the devs ignored this, but I won't be thrilled when the transcendent twelve are all sent to the retirement home and the hamster wheel has moved on to a new set of characters for which I'll also never get more than a dozen champ levels.

Vhailorx

voted " I hate it"

Vaulting will always be a terrible solution to the token dilution problem. The game has enough players at enough different stages of the game that any vaulting mechanism will invariably screw someone over.

favorites is the way to deal with the problems of token dilution.

As implemented last week, Bonus Heroes gave players full control over a very small pool of bonus pulls, but also skewed "regular pulls" very heavily in a particular, dev-selected direction.

IMO the right solution is to preserve purely RNG roster construction across all possible characters in "regular" pulls. and then give players control over a slightly larger pool of bonus pulls (maybe 10% instead of 5%). Over time, a 10% bias should give players plenty of control over their rosters (at least relative to what we had before bonus heroes), but without forcing everyone to race against the clock to champ each new character asap or waste LT covers.

Edit: Just read crnch73's post. And I quite like the idea of rotating 8-12 "classic" 4*s though the LT pool each season. It would solve a lot of roster progression problems that result from a permanent vault, AND it would probably also result in less hoarding. I am sure plenty of newer players would happily spend down their CP stockpiles on LTs if any when some desirable old 4* like Ice or Rulk was available.

fmftint

Needs some tweeking.
Were tokens diluted? Yes
Did they over correct and make the pool too shallow? Yes

40 is too many, 12 is too few, 17 gives each character 5% draw odds. Keep the 12 newest and let the player choose the other 5

broll

3 I like its and 1 I hate it. Kinda biased.

Young Robot

Hello, everyone I'm new to the forums, well not really i've been reading and keeping up with threads for a while now,
I've decided to finally join! And with my joining i've decided to bring some research on bonus heroes, I don't know
if this will help anyone but I've a steam account that i sandboxed (basically i used this account to make teams and
see how they work together, its basically hacked unlimited CP & HP, I don't play any events on it, my phone is my source
for legit playing). Since we already know to draw a bonus hero for single draws is a 1:20 chance and for anything more is
a 1:12 but after dishing out 40$ on my phone and doing 2 10x draws, and me not recieving one bonus hero i decide to look further into this! So i
went on my steam account and did 30 draws for heroic single, 10x, & 40x! From this research I just hope people can see if
they transitioning to 4* roster or 3* roster, that it can help them seem if they get out of each pack! Lets begin shall we!

Single Draws: Possiblities
Out of 30 draws in a row I recieved 0 bonus heroes.

10x Draws: Possiblities
17/30 of my draws I recieved 0 Bonus Heroes from 10x draws, even with the increase chance
But When I did get BH, theres were my possibilities:
0-2 3* Bonus Heroes in one 10x draw
One 4* Bonus Hero & One 3* Bonus Hero
One 4* Bonus Hero

40x Draws: Possibilities
Most Common to get from these packs are 1-3 bonus 3* heroes & 1 4* hero
The worst outcome i've received out of 30 40x draws was drawing no bonus heroes which i though was insane for a 40 pack
or drawing out 1 3* hero
The best outcome i've received was getting 3 4* bonus heroes and 2 3* bonus heroes
3 3* Bonus Heroes & 1 4* Bonus Hero
4 3* Bonus Heroes & 1 4* Bonus Hero
0 Bonus Heroes in general (1/30)
2 3* Bonus Heroes & 1 4* Bonus Hero
1 3* Bonus Heroes & 1 4* Bonus Hero
5 3* Bonus Heroes & 1 4* Bonus Hero
1 3* Bonus Hero (1/30)
7 3* Bonus Heroes & 1 4* Bonus Hero (1/30)
2 4* Bonus Heroes (2/30)
3 3* Bonus Heroes (1/30)
2 3* Bonus Heroes & 3 4* Bonus Heroes (1/30)

I believe after looking at my data, that rng and the amount people have to spend in other to spend to get heroes they want or older
heroes (Teen Jean, Rulk, Iceman, etc) is insane and its scary that spending 20$ could get you nothing extra even possible getting
a 40x pack can get you nothing thats basically 70-100$ that you spend. I just decide to test this because I'm currently in 4* transitioning,
I got my first 4* champ last week, sigh it was Elektra, I like her though! But I wanna build a teen jean but can't cause they stripped me of
getting more cards of her without making this extra RNG. If this help anyone to see how horrible the system is or to understand what it takes,
ill be glad, glad i can finally voice myself in this game.

GrimSkald

broll wrote:

3 I like its and 1 I hate it. Kinda biased.

If you say so. I see it more like this:

1) the system is fine as it is

2) the system is almost fine, but needs minor changes

3) the system will need major changes to work, but can be made to work

4) the system cannot be made to work - it should be scrapped completely.

broll

GrimSkald wrote:

broll wrote:

3 I like its and 1 I hate it. Kinda biased.

If you say so. I see it more like this:

1) the system is fine as it is

2) the system is almost fine, but needs minor changes

3) the system will need major changes to work, but can be made to work

4) the system cannot be made to work - it should be scrapped completely.

That's a much better wording than what you put in the poll. I can't bare to say I like it to the change even with a caveat on the end.