Coubii wrote: Haven't red. TLDR... Stepping only on one question: Question 8: If enough people voice concern, would you be willing to end vaulting? And why just tweek a bit the bonus heros system ? Let each player select the 12 4* that will be find in the vault. It will allow you to choose which character to put priority on. It also solve the dilution. Sounds great to me.
Question 8: If enough people voice concern, would you be willing to end vaulting?
Daredevil217 wrote: Q1: you're confusing bonus heroes with vaulting. Bonus heroes does slightly help with RNG, vaulting does not. I very clearly stated people love the former but mostly hate the latter. Q2: So if we are supposed to be focusing solely on the blessed 12, how does that vibe with all the other game features I mentioned that promote roster diversity? It's a mixed message. How do I compete in DDQ, Crash, essential nodes, get champ rewards, etc. just focusing on 12 toons?? Q3: The fact that I bring all my toons up to champ status as soon as I have 14 covers means I'm definately not softcapping. I would not go to war with Falcap, Wolverine and Cho as three of my only four champs if I was softcapping. Q4: So bonus heroes is your answer to why vaulting will work this time around? God I hope that's not going to be D3s official stance. Q5: If it's not designed with hoarding in mind it will be an unintended side effect. I also agree that they want us to spend and not hoard but what else do you do when you've maxed covered the blessed 12? Or you don't have the Iso to champ them? Do you keep throwing away tokens hoping to pull a bonus (the answer to all life's problems)? Seems wasteful. Q6: But you just said people should focus on the blessed 12 in your response to Q2. In fact I've heard many people talk about chucking undercovered toons because they will never get them to a useable place. Maybe newbies can keep a revolving roster spot for essential 4s, then chuck and replace them once the event is over (like many do with 2*). Seems kind of sad but is that the best way to go? Assuming you're right and I can get my one progressional token each time the event rolls around. How can I compete in Crash or Burrito? Wait for 10 or so events with that one character? Literally years before I can compete. Unless of course I maxed my 4s before the wall went up, in which case the resources will be flowing. Q7: Glad we agree. If you can admit there is perhaps one unintended consequence of this then it follows that the developers are fallible and there may in fact be more than one unintended and detrimental consequence to this extreme shift. Many of which people have beautifully articulated on these here forums. Q8: I'm really hoping you're wrong and the developers listen to their player base/consumers.
We have to talk about bonus heroes and vaulting together because they are both necessary to solve the dilution problem. Vaulting alone is not sufficient as it creates the older character problem, and bonus heroes aren't significant enough to solve it and making it significant enough to solve it would require D3 to essentially just give away free covers which we all know they won't do.
Fightmastermpq wrote: Enter bonus heroes. No one is complaining about bonus heroes because bonus heroes are awesome, so I'll go ahead and be the first....the bonus hero draw rate of 5% is too low for the 3* and 4* tiers. The bonus covers don't come fast enough to make up for the lost progress due to vaulting. You used to have a 1/43 shot at a 4* that you needed, now if you have just one 4* that you need you get a 1/20 shot - great! If you have two that you still need it's likely 40 pulls to get them....slightly better than the previous 43 I guess, and you can focus on those 2 - fine. If you have more than 2 older 4*s that you still need to roster (the vast majority of the player base) then it's going to take you WAY more pulls to get them now compared to before, and so it's become tougher to catch up. We have to talk about bonus heroes and vaulting together because they are both necessary to solve the dilution problem. Vaulting alone is not sufficient as it creates the older character problem, and bonus heroes aren't significant enough to solve it and making it significant enough to solve it would require D3 to essentially just give away free covers which we all know they won't do. So the two were implemented together to try to provide a better experience for all. It's not perfect, it could be better, but ultimately I think this will be better than what we had before - certainly for all newer players, and even a lot of vets as well.
Daredevil217 wrote: Many have suggested that we put all the 4's in the classics packs. Those who want to fast track or already have the classics champed can buy latest. And those who don't care about dilution or want to work on old 4's can buy classic. Can you give any reason why this would not be a more adequate solution?
Daredevil217 wrote: We have to talk about bonus heroes and vaulting together because they are both necessary to solve the dilution problem. Vaulting alone is not sufficient as it creates the older character problem, and bonus heroes aren't significant enough to solve it and making it significant enough to solve it would require D3 to essentially just give away free covers which we all know they won't do. Okay. Reading your entire post I think I see the main point where we diverge. I never thought of dilution as a problem personally because I could see I was making progress under the old system and I was in no rush to vault to 5* land tomorrow. That said I will agree that it is a problem for a large majority of the player base and their concerns are valid just like I'm sure you'd agree that the concerns being voiced by a large majority of the player base now, post-vaulting are valid. So, vaulting is an attempt to fix dilution. Fair. You state above that it creates a new problem. Fair. You state that bonus heroes is the solution to the new problem that vaulting creates and there is where you and a large majority of the player base differ. Like I said in a previous post: bonus heroes, like their namesake suggests, should be a "bonus" not the fix-all for what you yourself deemed "the older character problem". You state yourself that bonus heroes is not significant enough to fix the problem, so wouldn't it make sense that people would be upset over D3 creating a glaring problem and offering a "solution" that even a big supporter like yourself can admit is inadequate? Your solution to give out bonus heroes at a higher rate flys in the face of your stance that D3 does not want to give out substantially more covers to encourage spending (which I absolutely agree with). So that is out. Like I keep saying, bonuses are perfect as is, vaulting is the problem. Many have suggested that we put all the 4's in the classics packs. Those who want to fast track or already have the classics champed can buy latest. And those who don't care about dilution or want to work on old 4's can buy classic. Can you give any reason why this would not be a more adequate solution?
Fightmastermpq wrote: Daredevil217 wrote: We have to talk about bonus heroes and vaulting together because they are both necessary to solve the dilution problem. Vaulting alone is not sufficient as it creates the older character problem, and bonus heroes aren't significant enough to solve it and making it significant enough to solve it would require D3 to essentially just give away free covers which we all know they won't do. Okay. Reading your entire post I think I see the main point where we diverge. I never thought of dilution as a problem personally because I could see I was making progress under the old system and I was in no rush to vault to 5* land tomorrow. That said I will agree that it is a problem for a large majority of the player base and their concerns are valid just like I'm sure you'd agree that the concerns being voiced by a large majority of the player base now, post-vaulting are valid. So, vaulting is an attempt to fix dilution. Fair. You state above that it creates a new problem. Fair. You state that bonus heroes is the solution to the new problem that vaulting creates and there is where you and a large majority of the player base differ. Like I said in a previous post: bonus heroes, like their namesake suggests, should be a "bonus" not the fix-all for what you yourself deemed "the older character problem". You state yourself that bonus heroes is not significant enough to fix the problem, so wouldn't it make sense that people would be upset over D3 creating a glaring problem and offering a "solution" that even a big supporter like yourself can admit is inadequate? Your solution to give out bonus heroes at a higher rate flys in the face of your stance that D3 does not want to give out substantially more covers to encourage spending (which I absolutely agree with). So that is out. Like I keep saying, bonuses are perfect as is, vaulting is the problem. Many have suggested that we put all the 4's in the classics packs. Those who want to fast track or already have the classics champed can buy latest. And those who don't care about dilution or want to work on old 4's can buy classic. Can you give any reason why this would not be a more adequate solution? I like the new system. I've always champed what I thought were the best characters, and so the only 4*s I don't have champed are the ones that I don't consider to be all that great. The new system allows me to not feel obligated to spend the 350k ISO to champ them, but instead champ the latest 4s as they are released and continue to pull from either the latest or classic LTs without ever wasting a 4* cover. That's a huge improvement for me. I'm a 5* player, so while evenly leveling 4*s for champ rewards is nice, it doesn't really make my roster more competitive (except through added LT draws). What makes my roster more competitive is really high level 4*s, and bonus heroes will get me there faster than the old system (well, at least the first two 370s). Having older 4s in classic LTs makes sense, it really does. But I wouldn't like it. It would put me back into a position where I would be getting a ton of useless 4* covers from classics, and I'd prefer to be able to use them all without having to spend my CP on Latest tokens. I think they could expand bonus heroes to 15% and force a minimum of 3 heroes at each tier without really breaking the number of covers given. Most people have more than just 1 or 2 older characters that they really want/need to cover to continue progressing though or enjoying the game, and opening it up to 3 at 15% total would mean you could pick 6 of the 30+ older characters to have a slightly higher draw rate from what they were before the change. So that seems a lot more reasonable to me without negatively affecting the bottom line. Also, don't forget that the acquisition rate for older characters hasn't dropped to zero, they are still in vaults, and show up as placement/progression rewards. This is a big part of why vaulting today isn't nearly as bad as it was when it was around previously when characters were completely removed from any means of acquisition.
GurlBYE wrote: There's really no upside to vaulting and no really good reasoning any of us have seen for it.
Daredevil217 wrote: Annnnnnddd there it is. I already champed the good 4* and have transitioned, so I'm in the small subset of the population that this change doesn't hurt. And the only good reason I can give not to undo vaulting in the form of a completely separate token is I don't want to pay 5 CP more for a latest 4* draw. So I finally get you to admit there is a problem. You admit that you don't want them to undo vaulting in the form of a separate token because the system works for you slightly better (5 CP discount for pulls) at a huge detriment to the rest of the player base. Thanks for playing...
Tromb2ch2 wrote: Q1: you're confusing bonus heroes with vaulting. Bonus heroes does slightly help with RNG, vaulting does not. I very clearly stated people love the former but mostly hate the latter. Vaulting does help with RNG 1/12 > 1/40+
Q1: you're confusing bonus heroes with vaulting. Bonus heroes does slightly help with RNG, vaulting does not. I very clearly stated people love the former but mostly hate the latter.
Fightmastermpq wrote: GurlBYE wrote: There's really no upside to vaulting and no really good reasoning any of us have seen for it. As usual you are wrong. I just laid out several well-reasoned upsides from my point of view a couple posts up. Most people at least recognize that it gets new players from 0 to 13 covers on a 4* sooner, which has them competing at the 4* level sooner. That's a good thing. Obviously there are a lot of negatives, but to claim there are NO positives for ANYONE is...well that's just plain wrong.
Gmax101 wrote: There was little chance of the developers just going "Here, have a bunch of free covers of your choice in addition to the stuff you are pulling in RNG" as that would just be giving away stuff that would normally drive cash purchases... Similarly, just saying "We have let you decide which character you pull in tokens" just lets every one develop a limited roster. Neither of those solve the dilution problem but will guarantee that only the top tier of characters get developed and used, and that is awful for the game in the long run. By Vaulting they have effectively said, "We had to decide how to group characters in order to reduce dilution. In the 4* tier, by focusing on the newer characters we think it helps the experienced players level them easier so they become more viable faster, and makes it easier for newer transitional players to have characters they can focus on after the release events etc (when there is the highest concentration of PVE and PVP progression tokens). At 3* we picked a selection of characters so that people get covers faster and also to demonstrate an interesting selection of powers and abilities." Both of which, in terms of game survival, make sense.... Essentials are still available in progression, placement awards and vaults. Some 3* can be got from 2* and 4* can be got from 3*. So people can still have the key characters for DDQ and other PVE events. But what if someone really wants to get a character not in the tokens as standard? and this is where Bonus Heroes comes in... it's awfully named (IMO) and without properly addressing why vaulting is needed and why the decisions were made they open themselves up to abuse, but Bonus Heroes lets people chase those characters they want.... for whatever reason. Now, the change is definitely severe, and definitely could have been handled better... and is also not what the customers want (but then, from experience, customers in general sometimes are not necessarily interested in considering what is good for the game/service provider as a whole, rather than what they individually want... example: I want free delivery of purchases to my house, even though that bankrupts the retailer for example) I see Bonus Heroes as an attempt to provide people with access to the characters they really want. and if you REALLY want them all RIGHT now!!! well, you weren't getting that pre-change anyway....
carrion pigeons wrote: The new system makes it slower. But in the meantime, with proper prioritization, you can champ characters like Medusa, Carol, and Peggy (all of which are top tier and are perfectly capable of competing with characters like Iceman and Rhulk) much faster, so your raw progress towards competition level will be faster. That does mean you will have to adapt and come up with a new plan for your roster, but it doesn't mean you're actually being hurt by the change.
Fightmastermpq wrote: Daredevil217 wrote: Annnnnnddd there it is. I already champed the good 4* and have transitioned, so I'm in the small subset of the population that this change doesn't hurt. And the only good reason I can give not to undo vaulting in the form of a completely separate token is I don't want to pay 5 CP more for a latest 4* draw. So I finally get you to admit there is a problem. You admit that you don't want them to undo vaulting in the form of a separate token because the system works for you slightly better (5 CP discount for pulls) at a huge detriment to the rest of the player base. Thanks for playing... First of all, this change DOES hurt me. I have a dozen 4*s over level 300, and only one of them will see measurable progress for the foreseeable future. So that's a pretty big drawback, and I would be a lot happier with this change if I could pick 3 of those to each get a 5% boost instead of just 1. And as I pointed out, the subset of population that this change doesn't hurt is actually the VAST MAJORITY of the playerbase that isn't vocal on the forums. It's the players trying to enter the 4* tier, and they are all going to get there a lot sooner now because of this change. If they had older 4*s in classics it would undermine this effort, and I doubt they will do it.
notamutant wrote: I am a bit late to the party, but I just wanted to comment about those claiming adding bonus heroes wasn't some nefarious plan to distract from the huge nerf to the four star tier. If you recall when the champion feature was released, right before then, boosted 3s were able to compete (and sometimes were even better than) 4 stars. Of course, D3 didn't like that because it meant people wouldn't covet 4s as much. And since they got more money from 4s, they had to nerf the 3s. So at the same time as they release the champion system, they massively nerf the 3s. Now the gap between 3 and 4s is pretty large. I am not saying they implemented the champion feature entirely to nerf 3s, but they realized it was a problem for them and planned the timing out perfectly to conceal the natural angry reaction many would've had if they had nerfed the 3s without any nice new feature.
astrp3 wrote: BTW, I am fairly new to the game and wasn't around when championing was introduced, but did players at the time feel that it was adequate compensation for the 3* nerf?
astrp3 wrote: I suppose it's a just semantics, but what I, at least, found implausible was claims that did the vaulting JUST to stick it to the players (as if they enjoy sticking it to us simply for sake of doing so - though maybe I was taking people on the forums too literally) and then came up with bonus heroes strictly as a cover story. I do find it somewhat plausible that they came up with vaulting because 4*s were reaching the stage where they were could compete with 5*s and/or they thought vaulting would make them more money (by getting people to spend money to get 5*s, appeasing whales or getting them to pay more, getting people to buy from limited character vaults etc.) and wanted to give us a new feature they thought we would like to compensate (perhaps they thought about nerfing 4*S and said "no - remember what happened when we did that with 3*s"). Of course, I also have a number of questions about this scenario and have seen no actual evidence for any of this - though, if true, it's not the kind of thing I'd expect D3 to be forthright about or for their to be any evidence for (unless one of these whales that supposedly has a direct line to the devs to make feature requests admits that it was done at their request). BTW, I am fairly new to the game and wasn't around when championing was introduced, but did players at the time feel that it was adequate compensation for the 3* nerf?