Should Falcon be a 2*?

Unknown

I doubt we'll see many more 2 stars added, if any. The older the game gets, the less 2*s will matter. The high end will always be where the real game is perceived to be.

NorthernPolarity

KevinMark wrote:

2* characters are not useless. If you maxed a 3* team somehow, sure you might think they are useless but there are far too many people who hasn't done that. Not everyone has been playing this game from day zero or have deep pockets to develop a 3* team quickly. Right now not many of the 2* characters are good enough. There isn't enough variety due to some characters not being viable in 2* pool and some being too similar (same color combinations in different characters).

Most of the 3* characters don't cater to me. I cannot win enough covers of them nor buy them in a reasonable amount of time. I wish they released new 2* characters once in a while instead of churning out these 3*s one after another. Somebody said Ares was released 3 months ago. Isn't it time to release some more 2* characters? Or at least buff some of the 2* roster if you are not going to release new ones. Starting with buffing Moonstone's black ability could go a long ways replacing the ubiquitous OBW as another worthy purple/black user.

Releasing more 2* characters would just make it harder for people making the 1*->2* transition. Heres the thing: 3* characters are supposed to represent MPQ's endgame. The people who are on maxed 3*s only continue to play the game because d3 is releasing more 3* characters to play around with. 2* characters don't follow this same rule because the people who have 2* rosters want to transition into 3* rosters, therefore making any new 2* characters relatively useless: the people with maxed 2* rosters aren't going to spend iso leveling another 2* character when they want to save it for the 3* transition, and the 3* ppl aren't going to use it even when buffed because a maxed 3* is on the same powerlevel if not better unbuffed. It makes no sense to release more 2* characters based on this information.

The real problem is that half of the 2* roster is too weak to compete with the holy rectangle of OBW/Ares/Thor/Wolvie, and the side team of MN Mags + C. Storm. Instead of diluting the 2* pool, buffing existing weak characters (give Daken/Bullseye a third ability, buff moonstone/cap/hawkeye) would solve the same core issue of there not being enough diversity in the 2* pool while consuming far less dev resources and not diluting the 2* pool further. I see absolutely no reason to release another 2* character when you can do this instead and save a lot of work and time while at it.

Unknown

You say diluting the 2* pool will make 1* to 2* transition harder? How about 2* to 3* transition? Does it get easier when they release 3* characters? My point is the cover packs will get diluted anyway as they release any new character since they cannot make money when they don't release new characters, they might as well release some 2* characters.

Unknown

bloodwars wrote:

so apparently you can't disagree with jozier (or have a different opinion) without him hitting your rep. thanks dude. real small.

You're **** about the pointlessness of a discussion thread on the forum. Glad that you are the arbiter of what is a worthy discussion or not. You deserved a downvote.

NorthernPolarity

KevinMark wrote:

You say diluting the 2* pool will make 1* to 2* transition harder? How about 2* to 3* transition? Does it get easier when they release 3* characters?

It doesn't get any harder when they release 3* characters. People make the 3* transition largely based off a large concentration of a single character's event placement awards, which hasn't changed from before. Case in point, look at all the lazycap covers handed out during heroic juggs: you could have gotten 4 sets of those during that event and 2 sets from previous events, so it's not like that was any harder than completing Punisher when he was first released. Sure, adding more 3* characters also does dilute the 3* token pull, but it's not like token pulls actually mattered when making the 3* transition since the chances of you getting a relevant 3* off of a token was so low anyways. Adding more characters to the 3* pool might make it harder to finish any one particular character in your roster, but in terms of actually making the 2->3 transition, the only thing you care about is the frequency in which a SINGLE character is released, which hasn't changed one bit, meaning that the difficulty in making the transition as a function of the 3* character pool size hasn't changed one bit.

2*s on the other hand, are a completely different story. Since most event rewards guarantee only a single 2* cover versus the 3 3* covers you get from an event, I'll bet you that tokens matter a whole lot more in making the transition from 1->2*. Since the 2* pvp placement award change from 3 2* covers to 1 2* cover, people are becoming more dependent on tokens to fill in the holes of their 2* rosters. The bottom line is that an increased character pool mainly affects the pull rate from tokens since d3 is controlling what covers are released during events and can structure it such that key characters are focused on to allow people to make that transition, and 1->2* people get a lot more of their covers from tokens than 2->3* people do.

KevinMark wrote:

My point is the cover packs will get diluted anyway as they release any new character since they cannot make money when they don't release new characters, they might as well release some 2* characters.

3* characters make a lot more money than 2* characters do. Aside from the simple fact that it costs a ton less hp to max out a 2* than it does to max out a 3*, another factor you aren't considering is that veteran players simply aren't going to spend money on a 2*. Why would they spend HP on a character that is significantly worse than the current 3* characters in their roster? People don't like spending money on characters that they will 100% only use when the character is buffed or required (look at ares, how many veteran players incorporate him at all in their normal lineups?), and so a new 2* character would make d3 far less money than a new 3* character. Seems like a bad idea considering that they both take the same amount of development time to make. People can also easily get the 2* characters far more easily from token pulls, so people can just wait for those to max the 2* out, which you can't say the same at all for a 3* character. It just doesn't make sense to introduce new 2* characters from a practical and financial standpoint when you can just improve the existing 2* roster instead.

Unknown

Transition to 3* characters is already very hard. First you got to have a developed, at least 2* team. After that you need to be in a 20 person alliance whose members are mostly active. If you are not buying covers, you are stuck slaving through events with same, limited 2* roster for a long time. It all comes down to money which is sad. But yeah I'd settle for some of the weak 2*s to be balanced. That would make the transition more enjoyable.

Unknown

jozier wrote:

bloodwars wrote:

so apparently you can't disagree with jozier (or have a different opinion) without him hitting your rep. thanks dude. real small.

You're **** about the pointlessness of a discussion thread on the forum. Glad that you are the arbiter of what is a worthy discussion or not. You deserved a downvote.

I said i'd rather he be a 2 star, i gave my reasons, and i mentioned that this tread isn't going to change anything, so i didn't see why you seemed so emotionally invested in the issue and suppressing other people's opinions. I guess you think you're the arbiter of who's allowed to have them.

that's the last i'll say on it. as this is a tangential spat that isn't relevant to the actual discussion.

Unknown

NorthernPolarity wrote:

The real problem is that half of the 2* roster is too weak to compete with the holy rectangle of OBW/Ares/Thor/Wolvie, and the side team of MN Mags + C. Storm. Instead of diluting the 2* pool, buffing existing weak characters (give Daken/Bullseye a third ability, buff moonstone/cap/hawkeye) would solve the same core issue of there not being enough diversity in the 2* pool while consuming far less dev resources and not diluting the 2* pool further. I see absolutely no reason to release another 2* character when you can do this instead and save a lot of work and time while at it.

If balancing characters took a lot less work and time and dev resources than releasing new characters, you'd think they would have made at least a tiny bit of balancing progress by now

_RiO_

gobstopper wrote:

NorthernPolarity wrote:

The real problem is that half of the 2* roster is too weak to compete with the holy rectangle of OBW/Ares/Thor/Wolvie, and the side team of MN Mags + C. Storm. Instead of diluting the 2* pool, buffing existing weak characters (give Daken/Bullseye a third ability, buff moonstone/cap/hawkeye) would solve the same core issue of there not being enough diversity in the 2* pool while consuming far less dev resources and not diluting the 2* pool further. I see absolutely no reason to release another 2* character when you can do this instead and save a lot of work and time while at it.

If balancing characters took a lot less work and time and dev resources than releasing new characters, you'd think they would have made at least a tiny bit of balancing progress by now

You're already thinking too far ahead. The reality is probably far more simple: balancing doesn't generate any proven additional income, releasing new characters does.

Konman

jozier wrote:

IHatePVP wrote:

ANOTHER 3* character. There was no reason Falcon couldn't have been a 2*.

This game is alarmingly careening towards the point where the rare-to-any character ratio is 1:1. AND LazyDaken is still in the distance somewhere....

This is not a good plan. I'm gonna step away fom the game for a bit. See how I think/feel after some down-time.

...I'll check back in sometime in May.

There are plenty of reasons he couldn't have been a 2*. Namely that 2* are weak as hell and any 2* released is obsolete before it even drops.

2* need to serve a very specific purpose if they are going to be introduced into the game again.

I'd say most players use ** characters most of the time, and pretty much every time IceIX gives us some data on it, it confirms this. I personally would take a decent new ** over the latest group of ***.

DrNitroman

While 2* character may be used in a team with two 3* characters as support characters, I really think that 3* should be the level of most - or all - new characters. 2* serve to reach the 3* level that is the level veteran players play the game. New 3* character add more roster diversity which is more enjoyable in PvP. I don't think adding more 2* will aid new players to reach 3* level faster. Conversely, when you reach 3* level, you may regret that you preffered 2* char is not actually 3*.

Regarding the difficulty to get new covers as a function of 'current pool' size, I entirely agree with NorthernPolarity rationale (above): few 2* make it easier to obtain covers from token while 3* covers will be mostly obtained from placement reward.

Finally the only strange thing is to call 3* characters, rare characters altough they are the most numerous ones.

Unknown

jozier wrote:

gamar wrote:

jozier wrote:

IHatePVP wrote:

ANOTHER 3* character. There was no reason Falcon couldn't have been a 2*.

This game is alarmingly careening towards the point where the rare-to-any character ratio is 1:1. AND LazyDaken is still in the distance somewhere....

This is not a good plan. I'm gonna step away fom the game for a bit. See how I think/feel after some down-time.

...I'll check back in sometime in May.

There are plenty of reasons he couldn't have been a 2*. Namely that 2* are weak as hell and any 2* released is obsolete before it even drops.

2* need to serve a very specific purpose if they are going to be introduced into the game again.

Yeah dude Ares was a huge disappointment and everybody hates him and he never gets used

wait

You're getting very annoying on these forums but I'll break it down for you, slowly:

1) Ares was released 3 MONTHS ago. The game has changed significantly since then, to the tune of at least a half-dozen new 3*. When he was released, there was far more use for him. Now any new 2* just increases the difficulty in making the 2*-3* transition by diluting the pool as NP pointed out, and as immediately obsolete for anyone with 3* which was NOT the case when he was released, as there weren't as many useful 3* back then.

2) Ares is only used by people in the 2* to 3* transition or when he's buffed. To that end, you might as well just buff the current 2* and achieve the same purpose without releasing a new 2* and again diluting the pool for transitional teams

3) Did I mention the fact that Ares was released 3 MONTHS ago and that the game has changed significantly since then? No? Okay, I'll mention it again. It's changed. A lot. There are a LOT of more powerful characters out there. Good luck running Ares in high end PVP. You will be instantly attacked because he is not a deterrent to anyone but the 2* range.

4) It adds nothing for D3 because 2* characters are easier and cheaper to spec out and again, become obsolete much faster. There's no incentive to buy covers or tokens or ISO to cap a 2* when the goal is to move from 2* to 3*. That's ignoring the various gameplay issues above, there's little business sense to do it.

5) Adding 1*/2* characters again just makes it tougher for new players to focus. How many times have you used a 1* except for maybe M Storm outside of a 1* tourney or a Heroic since leaving the prologue? Never? Exactly. But add in another 1* for them to accumulate and it forces them to spread even more limited ISO around, waste another cover slot, etc., all for a character who is, (and this is becoming a theme here) obsolete.

I wasn't going to bite, I generally adhere to a "don't feed the troll" policy, but I think you're being entirely sincere and I'm kinda bored.

"There are plenty of reasons he couldn't have been a 2*. Namely that 2* are weak as hell and any 2* released is obsolete before it even drops." This probably bugged me the most, because it reeks of ignorance. Firstly, it means you're calling OBW obsolete, as well as Ares. I think most people would agree that calling OBW obsolete in this game is insane. On top of that, you're condemning all future characters that are 2* as obsolete regardless of skills. Effectively, by your logic, any character that can't get above level 85 is redundant by default.

Also, on a different tangent, you're classing any non-competitive character as obsolete. Is all you care about getting stronger characters? It seems to want to play a game where new characters are consistently slightly stronger than the last ones, which is a sad little dev mechanic called "power creep" and I really hope D3 aren't going that route, as all it does is render all the old material pointless over time in the endless pursuit of squeezing more money out of people who take the game a little too seriously. After all, this game is about as far removed from the competitive gaming scene as you can get! I doubt MPQ will be showing up at an esports event any time soon.

Give me a fun character over a strong one any day. A fun character that would be more accessible for the vast majority of players who aren't running 3* teams and hence don't care about anything 2*, like you. How selfish to deny these people, the majority, from an enhanced playing experience! Haven't you had enough new 3* characters over the last few months? The players who aren't there yet have had no new characters to think about in all this time. Which brings me to...

"Ares was released 3 MONTHS ago." You like this one so much you made it two points! Your point is that the game has changed, so he's no longer relevant... except to all the players who are still using/needing strong 2* characters, which is most of them. So again, if we go by your logic, any character lower than 3* won't be of interest to you, therefore shouldn't exist. What about all the people who play for fun? All the players who want to collect some of their favourite Marvel characters and play a fun game with them, and don't really care about maximising their chances of winning? You seem to have a very blinkered view of this game based on your own experience.

"Now any new 2* just increases the difficulty in making the 2*-3* transition by diluting the pool". Yes, introducing more 2* characters makes it harder for players to collect the right covers to max their 2* teams and 'compete' for 3* covers, which are all important. However there are a couple of severe flaws in this argument. Firstly, what do you think constantly introducing new 3* characters does to the 2*-3* transition? Makes it much harder to collect matching 3* covers, making the transition much more difficult. In addition, 2* covers are much easier to obtain, so even with a few more 2* characters they would be collected over time and maxed out. This isn't true of 3* covers. I would argue an increase in 3* covers makes the transition far more difficult than introducing new 2* characters. There are already enough 3* characters that people are fighting to collect and max out, you really think we need more? If anything D3 risk players losing interest in trying to collect any of the 3* covers because they collect whichever ones they can get, and then run out of roster space.

I could carry on, but it's very late where I am and I think this is already a bit too tl;dr, so I'll stop now. I think I covered the important points.

NorthernPolarity

Fluffyudders wrote:

I wasn't going to bite, I generally adhere to a "don't feed the troll" policy, but I think you're being entirely sincere and I'm kinda bored.

"There are plenty of reasons he couldn't have been a 2*. Namely that 2* are weak as hell and any 2* released is obsolete before it even drops." This probably bugged me the most, because it reeks of ignorance. Firstly, it means you're calling OBW obsolete, as well as Ares. I think most people would agree that calling OBW obsolete in this game is insane. On top of that, you're condemning all future characters that are 2* as obsolete regardless of skills. Effectively, by your logic, any character that can't get above level 85 is redundant by default.

2* characters just can't keep up with 3* characters in PvP: once you have a 3* roster, I think having any 2* character on your team is a liability simply because of the lower health that they have compared to 2*s. Most 2*s have a functional equivalent in 3* land anyways, so I would argue that they are completely obsoleted outside of events that they're buffed in. You might argue that OBW isn't obsolete, but having her on your team puts a huge target on your head due to her low hp from my experience.

Fluffyudders wrote:

"Now any new 2* just increases the difficulty in making the 2*-3* transition by diluting the pool". Yes, introducing more 2* characters makes it harder for players to collect the right covers to max their 2* teams and 'compete' for 3* covers, which are all important. However there are a couple of severe flaws in this argument. Firstly, what do you think constantly introducing new 3* characters does to the 2*-3* transition? Makes it much harder to collect matching 3* covers, making the transition much more difficult. In addition, 2* covers are much easier to obtain, so even with a few more 2* characters they would be collected over time and maxed out. This isn't true of 3* covers. I would argue an increase in 3* covers makes the transition far more difficult than introducing new 2* characters. There are already enough 3* characters that people are fighting to collect and max out, you really think we need more? If anything D3 risk players losing interest in trying to collect any of the 3* covers because they collect whichever ones they can get, and then run out of roster space.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6295&start=40#p119064. Your argument doesn't make sense because there is a huge difference in how people acquire 2* overs vs how they acquire 3* covers.

Unknown

http://youtu.be/W5FfJ89rGPc

Unknown

NorthernPolarity wrote:

Fluffyudders wrote:

I wasn't going to bite, I generally adhere to a "don't feed the troll" policy, but I think you're being entirely sincere and I'm kinda bored.

"There are plenty of reasons he couldn't have been a 2*. Namely that 2* are weak as hell and any 2* released is obsolete before it even drops." This probably bugged me the most, because it reeks of ignorance. Firstly, it means you're calling OBW obsolete, as well as Ares. I think most people would agree that calling OBW obsolete in this game is insane. On top of that, you're condemning all future characters that are 2* as obsolete regardless of skills. Effectively, by your logic, any character that can't get above level 85 is redundant by default.

2* characters just can't keep up with 3* characters in PvP: once you have a 3* roster, I think having any 2* character on your team is a liability simply because of the lower health that they have compared to 2*s. Most 2*s have a functional equivalent in 3* land anyways, so I would argue that they are completely obsoleted outside of events that they're buffed in. You might argue that OBW isn't obsolete, but having her on your team puts a huge target on your head due to her low hp from my experience.

Fluffyudders wrote:

"Now any new 2* just increases the difficulty in making the 2*-3* transition by diluting the pool". Yes, introducing more 2* characters makes it harder for players to collect the right covers to max their 2* teams and 'compete' for 3* covers, which are all important. However there are a couple of severe flaws in this argument. Firstly, what do you think constantly introducing new 3* characters does to the 2*-3* transition? Makes it much harder to collect matching 3* covers, making the transition much more difficult. In addition, 2* covers are much easier to obtain, so even with a few more 2* characters they would be collected over time and maxed out. This isn't true of 3* covers. I would argue an increase in 3* covers makes the transition far more difficult than introducing new 2* characters. There are already enough 3* characters that people are fighting to collect and max out, you really think we need more? If anything D3 risk players losing interest in trying to collect any of the 3* covers because they collect whichever ones they can get, and then run out of roster space.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6295&start=40#p119064. Your argument doesn't make sense because there is a huge difference in how people acquire 2* overs vs how they acquire 3* covers.

I think the big point about the "obsolete" argument is that most players, and since games like this have a lot of player churn most players going forward into the future, are playing with 2* characters in their rosters. And the "dilution" argument isn't necessarily bad because it encourages people to buy token packs.

Unknown

What the game needs in the 1/2 star field:

#1 The current 1*/2* crop need to be fleshed out with 3rd skills or to be re-balanced like bagman.

#2 Prologue rebalanced. (The vast majority here are well past the prologue so you don't know about the problems with it. They removed the healing via spiderman and it became much slower. Furthermore with the change in event structure, new players are better off just competing in whatever event is going on instead of the grinding the prologue.)

WilsonFisk

I think the game should get new 2* characters for a few reasons.

As a comic fan, I enjoy the collecting aspect of the game, if a new character is introduced, I want them in my roster.

There are still new players joining the game! You've got lots of people trying to climb the one star ranks now. A shiny new 2* would be a lot more achievable as a goal as a 3*. My young son plays, he's nearly got his 1*s maxed, started on some 2*s, and has several 1 cover 3*s which will be useless to a player in his position for a long time.

I also think there should be 1* tournaments with 2* max prizes. This evens the playing field, and gives the new guys the same chance at a top prize than an elite guy with a loaded 3* roster. What would be even better is release these tournaments the same time as a normal PVP, but you only get to join one! Let the heavy hitters join the main event, and save the smaller prizes for newbs.

I'm 80ish days in now, and just within the last 2 weeks have been able to get my first set of 3* over level 85. I think a guy just picking the game up today just doesn't even have a chance to get to the lowly level I am at without spending even more time at it. The game is going to eventually force new guys out because they will not be able to compete in any PVP.

Unknown

I have seen the complaint that too many people are going from 1* rosters to 3* rosters and this is a bad progression and not "how it should be"

People will always want new toys. Throwing in 2* toys that are new and shiny might encourage 2* players to compete for, level up and use 2* characters, as controversial as that sounds.

True those strongly in the 3* camp should not be excited about gathering a new 2*, but I can't fathom why releasing something fun and new for those still relying on 2*s would be something the top tier players would be against...

Yes 3*s are the end game and yes there are those who are at the edge of that and wanting more, but there is a lot of game between beginning and end, filling out the middle more can only be a good thing.

Can they go back and make Falcon a 2* now, god no. People would be so mad and that wouldn't help anyone with anything. Would Falcon have been an interesting addition to the 2* arena, absolutely.

The question I am curious about is will he be a good enough support that he will get used in 3* land. If the answer is no, then maybe he really should have been 2*. If he holds his own up there then he has earned his 3* rarity but it seems way too soon to make that call.

akboyce

I will concede that Sam Wilson (Falcon) as a character should probably only be a 2*. For the sake of argument we will accept this as a fact.

However look at the art, abilities, and description. This fantastic cover not only gives you Sam Wilson but ALSO Redwing! Sure Sam Wilson alone is only a 2* but Redwing MUST be at least 1*. Together they form the mighty 3* Falcon!

Now some of you may be saying "But akboyce surely Redwing is weaker than a 1* like Juggernaut." Well to this I say there is no such thing as a 0* yet and Redwing is probably stronger than weak goons who are also 1*.

Sam Wilson (2*) + Redwing (1*) = 3* Falcon

CAW!

Unknown

When Ares was released, I already had a capable 3* roster and did not need him as part of my regular line-up. I was excited nonetheless to collect and level him, and though I don't really use him outside of special events I have no regrets about having him in my stable at 85.

One important thing about Ares, though, is that he's one of the few Dark Avengers we have access to. Dark Avengers teams need him to have a reasonable yellow/the best green ability in their arsenal. As a dude and an Avenger, Falcon fills no similar niche role and isn't super useful. So Falcon might not have been a good choice as a 2*; we have plenty of male characters and plenty of Avengers, so the artificial scarcity of his classifications doesn't make him desirable the way Ares' did.

That doesn't mean another 2* character couldn't be useful in the future. We don't have a lot of mutants, for instance, so a 2* mutant might be neat (although MN Mags, Classic Storm, and Astonishing Wolverine are already doing a decent job at 2*). The lady pool is pretty shallow (although most of the ladies are 2* already). They could introduce a 2* brotherhood character and make some of those old anti-brotherhood boosts marginally more useful.

In short: the usefulness of Falcon as a 2* might be limited, but 2* characters can be fun when they fill a specific role and we shouldn't write them off entirely.