Has anyone done the math?

135678

Comments

  • Fightmastermpq
    Fightmastermpq Posts: 995 Critical Contributor
    broll said:
    Fightmastermpq said:
    Starfury said:
    Fightmastermpq said:
    DaveR4470 said:

    Ultimately, I'm not arguing with those who are saying "vaulting sucks; I hate it".  It's fine to not like something.  I'm arguing with the people who are saying "this breaks the game" or "now players can never cover vaulted characters". 

    This has been my soap box recently.  The vast majority of complaints are "vaulting sucks because [bad math]...." and I really think that people would be a lot more open to it if they understand the math and what it really means for their rosters.  tinykitty just today in this thread I thought a little deeper on the very long term and realized that vaulting might actually be better for me than I originally thought.
    Vaulting sucks because my draw rate of vaulted characters dropped from ~75% to 5%.

    Not sure if that qualifies as bad math but it sure as tinykitty qualifies as a bad change for me.
    Does it? Your draw rate of new characters went from 25% to 100%.  Don't know what your roster looks like, but I would wager that your path to success is better under the new system than the old.
    Yes it does.  My rate of getting champions increased, but I will never max champ anything.  Now instead of slowly building vaulted top 10s like Red Hulk and Peggy they will be stuck sub 280 and I'll be PvPing people who have much higher level ones when they are boosted.  I've got a permanent glass ceiling keeping from playing at a high level in 4* tier and that won't go away unless vaulting does.
    See, this is the bad math I've been talking about.  You set those top tier 4*s as your bonus heroes and they hit 370 much faster than the old system.  At least the first 2 will, the next several are slower, but at some point dilution takes over and the remainder actually get to 370 faster because BH removes wasted covers pulled for your 370s.

    Under the old system in the long term you would very slowly max champ your 4s most likely in the order that you champed them in the first place.  But every 2 weeks dilution makes the entire process slower and slower until you get to a 5* classics situation where your odds of pulling a cover for any one 4* are INCREDIBLY low, say you've got half the 4s at 370 so half your pulls are now wasted again, and it just takes absolutely forever to max champ everyone.  Now there is no waste due to BH.  Once you get a max champ you set your BH as the next highest and continue.  No more waste.
  • astrp3
    astrp3 Posts: 367 Mover and Shaker
    Starfury said:

    What's that path to success supposed to be? Have a moving window of 12 relevant 4* with an expiry date of 6 months each?

    It's actually more like 8 or 9 months.
  • TetsujinOni
    TetsujinOni Posts: 181 Tile Toppler
    Vhailorx said:
    Fightmastermpq said:
    broll said:
    carrion pigeons said:
    The problem people have with vaulting varies according to their status.  Veterans with champed 4*s don't like vaulting because champ rewards for newly champed characters are less valuable than those with more levels.  Vaulting makes it harder to get characters deep into their champ levels, and this reduces the flow of resources to vets.

    People in the 4* transition don't like vaulting because they had a whole bunch of half-developed characters who are suddenly either wasted space or else extremely more long-term projects that can only rely on Bonus Heroes to get anywhere, one at a time.

    People without older characters at all don't like vaulting because they still have to compete against people who have them, and it feels like an unfair advantage they can never overcome, in terms of flexibility and utility.

    Also, everyone objects to the way vaulting causes more wasted pulls.  This is admittedly a short-term problem, but it's one people are having right now.

    Vaulting has clear long-term benefits: it creates a shifting metagame which gives the game more depth.  It lessens the burden on new players in some respects to advance.  It justifies the existence of Bonus Heroes, which probably would never have been implemented without it.  It came with an associated bump in total 4* acquisition.  All of that is nice.  But it's easy to see how a change that had immediate negative effects on every active player in the game would be unpopular.
    You were gonna get a like until that last paragraph.  There are no clear long-term benefits and those short-term benefits aren't going to suddenly go away.  A few of them will gradually fade, but that will take either vets quitting or a very long time to achieve.
    The first rule of Likes is you don't talk about Likes.

    How about the length of time it takes to get to a point where you have virtually no wasted 4* covers getting cut to 1/4 what it was before?  Is that not a benefit?  Feels like a benefit to me.
    I don't think I am willing to concede that point Fight.  Yes, in order to avoid wasting many LTs, a player now "only" has to champ 12 4*s (which is still a tall order for most players, so we really are talking about a small community of people here).  But that group of 12 changes every month.  So over a 6 month period one doesn't need to champ 12 4*s to avoid waste, one needs to champ closer to 20. 

    Under the old system, roster progress may have been a bit slower, but it was also locked it.  It might take longer to get most of the 4*s leveled and champed, but once done, they remained useful in terms of LT efficiency.  Vaulting puts an expiration date on 4* champs.  After 8 months or so they become much less useful (from a resource efficiency perspective).  so over the long term I don't know that it reduces the burden on players.

    There are definitely pros and cons to both systems, but since the game had heavily invested in the former system for a long time, the abrupt shift to the vaulting system seems pretty counterproductive to me. 

    I think the ultimate bottom line that we see here among the vet/forum community is that vaulting is good for, and liked by, players with 370 4*s (*cough*Fightmaster*cough*), but bad for, and disliked by, players with ~300 4*s (*cough*vhailorx*cough*).
    *points below at roster*

    I like the vaulting system. I think it enables a shifting metagame that could be paid off with a new limited roster event type that only allows in-token characters to be used.
  • Fightmastermpq
    Fightmastermpq Posts: 995 Critical Contributor
    edited April 2017
    Vhailorx said:

    I think the ultimate bottom line that we see here among the vet/forum community is that vaulting is good for, and liked by, players with 370 4*s (*cough*Fightmaster*cough*), but bad for, and disliked by, players with ~300 4*s (*cough*vhailorx*cough*).
    I missed this until now, but just want to point out that before vaulting my 4s topped out at 320 I think with less than a dozen over 300.

    edit: Updated the 4s and 5s on my roster here... https://mpq.gamependium.com/rosters/Fightmaster/
  • Starfury
    Starfury Posts: 719 Critical Contributor
    edited April 2017
    Fightmastermpq said:
    You define your own success, but for me it's a roster that makes it easier for me to be as competitive as possible.  Our rosters aren't much different, when vaulting went live I had a few more 4*s, but they all topped out around 300 as well.  I've now got a level 350 Iceman.  When he is boosted I am much more competitive than previously.  I also no longer have to care about the bottom tier vaulted 4*s and can focus only on the 12 newest ones selling off fewer covers.  That makes me more competitive.
    I don't know how you play the game, but I certainly didn't pull anywhere close to the 1000 LT (or 5000 heroics) it takes on average to get 50 4* bonus heroes. :o

    Though who knows, by the time I've got enough iso the champ the latest 12, I might have hoarded as many...

    Anyways, for me the game was never about being able to not care about characters. Vaulting however is exactly that. Throw away a large part of 4* land (and the considerable investment champing them meant) and never speak of them again. They too have passed.
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited April 2017
    Fightmastermpq said:
    broll said:
    Fightmastermpq said:
    Starfury said:
    Fightmastermpq said:
    DaveR4470 said:

    Ultimately, I'm not arguing with those who are saying "vaulting sucks; I hate it".  It's fine to not like something.  I'm arguing with the people who are saying "this breaks the game" or "now players can never cover vaulted characters". 

    This has been my soap box recently.  The vast majority of complaints are "vaulting sucks because [bad math]...." and I really think that people would be a lot more open to it if they understand the math and what it really means for their rosters.  tinykitty just today in this thread I thought a little deeper on the very long term and realized that vaulting might actually be better for me than I originally thought.
    Vaulting sucks because my draw rate of vaulted characters dropped from ~75% to 5%.

    Not sure if that qualifies as bad math but it sure as tinykitty qualifies as a bad change for me.
    Does it? Your draw rate of new characters went from 25% to 100%.  Don't know what your roster looks like, but I would wager that your path to success is better under the new system than the old.
    Yes it does.  My rate of getting champions increased, but I will never max champ anything.  Now instead of slowly building vaulted top 10s like Red Hulk and Peggy they will be stuck sub 280 and I'll be PvPing people who have much higher level ones when they are boosted.  I've got a permanent glass ceiling keeping from playing at a high level in 4* tier and that won't go away unless vaulting does.
    See, this is the bad math I've been talking about.  You set those top tier 4*s as your bonus heroes and they hit 370 much faster than the old system.  At least the first 2 will, the next several are slower, but at some point dilution takes over and the remainder actually get to 370 faster because BH removes wasted covers pulled for your 370s.

    Under the old system in the long term you would very slowly max champ your 4s most likely in the order that you champed them in the first place.  But every 2 weeks dilution makes the entire process slower and slower until you get to a 5* classics situation where your odds of pulling a cover for any one 4* are INCREDIBLY low, say you've got half the 4s at 370 so half your pulls are now wasted again, and it just takes absolutely forever to max champ everyone.  Now there is no waste due to BH.  Once you get a max champ you set your BH as the next highest and continue.  No more waste.
    If I favorite one of them, that one might move quicker.  to the determine of the others.  That's not a trade off I'm OK with.  At this point it seems like a much better use of the champion system to get my non-13s up to 13 and get all characters at one level, vs pick a single top tier vaulted to slowly grow while the others grow moss...  Not to mention eating worse PvE scaling by having a single character rise far above the others. 

    That strategy might change once I have 1 or 2 usable 5*s but that days still a ways away.  
  • Fightmastermpq
    Fightmastermpq Posts: 995 Critical Contributor
    Starfury said:
    Fightmastermpq said:
    You define your own success, but for me it's a roster that makes it easier for me to be as competitive as possible.  Our rosters aren't much different, when vaulting went live I had a few more 4*s, but they all topped out around 300 as well.  I've now got a level 350 Iceman.  When he is boosted I am much more competitive than previously.  I also no longer have to care about the bottom tier vaulted 4*s and can focus only on the 12 newest ones selling off fewer covers.  That makes me more competitive.
    I don't know how you play the game, but I certainly didn't pull anywhere close to the 1000 LT (or 5000 heroics) it takes on average to get 50 4* bonus heroes. :o

    Though who knows, by the time I've got enough iso the champ the latest 12, I might have hoarded as many...

    Anyways, for me the game was never about being able to not care about characters. Vaulting however is exactly that. Throw away a large part of 4* land (and the considerable investment champing them meant) and never speak of them again. They too have passed.
    Iceman was one of my highest and was somewhere between 310-320.  I get 4s from heroics and event tokens as well.  I also set Mystique as my 3* BH because she rewards Iceman covers and I got a couple that way

    Meanwhile my non-vaulted 4*s are completely relevant and to be honest I'm not yet convinced that I won't be able to get them to 370 in the 6-8 months that they are in there.  Coulson has been in for what, 1 and a half seasons?  I've already got 24 champ levels on him.  In another 3.5 seasons 76 more champ levels is not unreasonable.  So it's likely that you end up with a group of 4*s getting vaulted at MUCH higher levels than ALL your current vaulted 4*s.
  • mohio
    mohio Posts: 1,690 Chairperson of the Boards
    @broll - you said this... "Yes it does.  My rate of getting champions increased, but I will never max champ anything.  Now instead of slowly building vaulted top 10s like Red Hulk and Peggy they will be stuck sub 280 and I'll be PvPing people who have much higher level ones when they are boosted.  I've got a permanent glass ceiling keeping from playing at a high level in 4* tier and that won't go away unless vaulting does."

    And I just don't think this statement jives with reality. Until they change the game to being a base 4* game (meaning greatly increased 4* rewards), you just aren't going to max champ any 4* without spending a quite large sum of money. As this thread is about math, let's look at the math behind it...

    Let's say your top 4's are vaulted, and around level 300. Under the old system, you would average 1 cover every 55 LT pulls. So to max champ someone from 300, would take on average 3850 LTs. I won't even bother to figure out how long that would take you as a f2p - at a generous rate of 2 per day it's over 5 years. You could maybe cut that time by a year from progression rewards, as they are going to come up in PvE around once a year, and PvP around 3 times a year. You'll be lucky to pull a couple at most from heroic/event tokens, as you'd need to open 500+ on average for even just 1 of a given character.

    I want to quickly address the second part of the comment as well. This may not be what most people want to hear, but that glass ceiling you refer to...it's made of money. Nearly everyone who has those huge 4s at 340+ spent at least a pretty hefty sum on this game. If you want to be on equal footing with them, you have to spend some money too. I'm perfectly content with my 300-320s and not giving d3 my money cause I don't really think they deserve it, but that's just me, you're free to do whatever you want.

    Tl;dr - it's not vaulting that's keeping you back, it's not spending a huge sum on money on the game.
  • astrp3
    astrp3 Posts: 367 Mover and Shaker
    sh81 said:

    Ill get 2 CP a day from DDQ, assuming I have the required 4* (Ive only 4 missing, so I usually do).
    Ill get whatever CP is in progression, so for Prodgal Sun thats 25CP for 7 days.  Plus what? 14CP from nodes within Prodigal Sun?  So thats 53CP for a week.  Slightly more than I anticipated, but not much.

    That may be true this week, but on a typical week with two PvEs, you get an extra 25 CP from progression. Plus, your occasional top-10 finishes net you at least 3CP for each sub in which you finished top 10 (not that doing so isn't a royal pain).

    If you want more CP, I would urge you to consider doing PvP to 575. That's 30 more CP a week. It's trivially easy to do so (at least for me, YMMV depending on your roster) and doesn't take much time (FAR less than PvE grinding, plus you can do it when you want). And, if it's mostly CP you want and you don't want to spend more time on the game, your time might be better spent getting to 575 in PvP than pushing for top 10, or even top 50, in PvE.

    You also get the occasional CP from daily SHIELD resupply (if you aren't on Steam at least), season progression, etc.

  • Starfury
    Starfury Posts: 719 Critical Contributor
    Fightmastermpq said:
    So it's likely that you end up with a group of 4*s getting vaulted at MUCH higher levels than ALL your current vaulted 4*s.
    At the cost of 75% of 4* most of which will never get a chance to reach their full potential. Even a single bonus hero will advance considerably slower than the **** members of the latest 12. I think you can accept that people don't like that being done to the vast majority of their champed 4*?

    And if you think you can get 113 covers for a new 4* before he's vaulted, it means your rate of cover aquisition already matches the speed of character releases. You would've been able to maxchamp everyone eventually - although slower than the new system enables you to maxchamp some, which you obviously find preferable.

    I however am not even close to that rate of 4* acquisition (5 / day) and I still don't like the idea of picking one or two of my vaulted 4* champs to salvage and committing the rest of them to rot in the vault.
  • BoyWonder1914
    BoyWonder1914 Posts: 884 Critical Contributor
    The only people who complain about dilution are the ones trying to get SPECIFIC characters fully covered, usually newer ones. To someone who didn't really care as long as more pulls proved useful at a higher rate, there was absolutely nothing wrong with an ever-increasing pool of characters to pull from. In fact, it was PREFERRED. People want to be able to champ who they want to champ, when they want to champ them, not who the game dictates they have to champ due to limited accessibility. Don't get me wrong here however, even under the old system if you hoard/pull enough, you will inevitably still get to a point where you have most people in the pool well/fully covered. You will inevitably get to a point where you are looking to get specific characters, and thus each person added to the pool lowers your odds for that. However, let's not act like that can't happen with the current system, in fact it happens MUCH faster since the pool only includes 12 people at any given time. 

    Vaulting was an exceptional solution to helping players get the new releases covered faster, but once you get to that point of having them fully covered, then what? This is gonna sound crazy, but believe it or not, not everyone cares about getting X person to Lv 370. Some people actually want to try to move on getting other characters fully covered, and let the champ rewards fall as they may. Am I saying a Lv 370 CM4 isn't awesome? Absolutely not! Am I saying a Lv 370 Medusa is not something I'd want? Absolutely not! But can I get back to my Hulkbuster please? Vaulting was a half measure that did not account for the people that still care a great deal about getting older characters champed and useable. While Bonus Heroes is a great feature, considering it the end all - be all to the vaulting dilemma is foolhardy. There is no better solution to this than a vault that features these characters, and they were fully aware of this when they rolled out that "Vintage" Heroic Store. 
  • astrp3
    astrp3 Posts: 367 Mover and Shaker
    BoyWonder1914 said:
    The only people who complain about dilution are the ones trying to get SPECIFIC characters fully covered, usually newer ones. To someone who didn't really care as long as more pulls proved useful at a higher rate, there was absolutely nothing wrong with an ever-increasing pool of characters to pull from.

    Not really true. I had a major problem with dilution and I am not trying to get specific covers. I just wanted to get some 4*s - any 4*s - that were useable and allowed me to further progress. I didn't care which specific ones they were, as long as they were not bottom tier. Dilution made that harder. Limited stores make it easier (though I wish they'd implemented them without vaulting).

    As to your point about getting 4*s to 370, I totally agree. I would much rather have all my 4*s champed and at level 270 than to have a handful at 370 and the rest unchamped.  As a collector, I want to do well in PVP and PvE so that I can build my roster, which seems a bit backward (shouldn't it be the other way around?). The collector in me definitely does not like vaulting.

  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    mohio said:
    I want to quickly address the second part of the comment as well. This may not be what most people want to hear, but that glass ceiling you refer to...it's made of money. Nearly everyone who has those huge 4s at 340+ spent at least a pretty hefty sum on this game. If you want to be on equal footing with them, you have to spend some money too. I'm perfectly content with my 300-320s and not giving d3 my money cause I don't really think they deserve it, but that's just me, you're free to do whatever you want.
    Unless I'm missing something, its even worse now because even if you pay a huge sum of money it's going to be harder than it was prior to get the old vaulted 4* to come up.  The glass ceiling I was referring to was that unless you were a whale before this change and already had old 4*s up to the upper 300s you're not going to, at least not as quickly as you could have before.  You could whale up the new characters but you will still have problems when you go toe to toe with a boosted vaulted character.
  • astrp3
    astrp3 Posts: 367 Mover and Shaker
    edited April 2017
    Vhailorx said:
    Obviously there will be the odd person here or there that doesn't fall into these categories, or holds a contrary opinion.  But I stand by this broad parsing of the effects of vaulting on different types of players and the resulting opinions of the new vaulting system. 

    Excellent summary and I agree with much of what you said. One note, however, is that the term "vaulting" seems to be used in multiple ways on here, which I think may be part of the reason for the back-and-forth. Some use it to refer to both limited stores and removing the older 4*s from stores while others use it for just the latter.  So, under the first definition, I suppose I could be called "pro-vaulting" but I don't really like doing so. I am certainly pro-limited-stores, but I am certainly not pro-removing-older-characters-from-stores and I don't think the two had to be tied together; at least not from a player perspective - maybe they did from a business perspective.


  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    Vhailorx Good analysis.  I'm transition from 3 to 2 right now and very anti-vaulting.  I was firmly a 3 3-4 month ago and still feel I would be anti-vaulting then, but I can see others who were in that area being pro it, especially if they weren't as close to maxing out so many and/or didn't have plan for getting out like I did (before the devs took a tinykitty all over it).
  • Pants1000
    Pants1000 Posts: 484 Mover and Shaker
    Vhailorx said:
    Fightmastermpq said:
    Vhailorx said:

    I think the ultimate bottom line that we see here among the vet/forum community is that vaulting is good for, and liked by, players with 370 4*s (*cough*Fightmaster*cough*), but bad for, and disliked by, players with ~300 4*s (*cough*vhailorx*cough*).
    I missed this until now, but just want to point out that before vaulting my 4s topped out at 320 I think with less than a dozen over 300.

    edit: Updated the 4s and 5s on my roster here... https://mpq.gamependium.com/rosters/Fightmaster/
    But you are a 5* player fight.  You were already playing at the highest levels of the game (save for the literal handful of players with 550s).  tinykitty, you say you had no 4*s above 320 when vautling went live, but you Iceman is 350 now.  How many people have collected 30+ covers for ANY 4* in these past few weeks, let alone for a vaulted one?  Maybe .1% of the playerbase? Obviously my axiom won't hold true for everyone, but I do think that by and large a given player's reaction to vaulting can largely be explained by their current position in the player hierarchy. 

    (1) The very top tier of players, those with 370 4*s and/or 5* champs.  Vaulting lets them level the newest 4*s up to 5* play levels (when boosted) significantly faster.  These players are generally the most hard core, and they have the roster strength and/or dedication to grind hard enough to get vaulted 4* covers from PVE and PVP placement, which limits the pain of taking these characters out of LTs.  From this perspective, the biggest effect of vaulting is to accelerate the acquisition rate of new 4*s, which is a good thing.  pro-vaulting (I think both Fight and Tetsu fit this description)

    (2) the 4* vet class.  These players had a bunch of 4* champs, but mostly in the 270-290 range.  They took about 6-9 months to cover a new 4* at pre-vaulting drop rates.  They have all the old 4*s covered or nearly covered.  Iso is the biggest limitation on roster growth for these players as they generally cover 4*s faster than or as fast as they can collect iso even at pre-vaulting rates.  From this perspective vaulting is a pain in the tinykitty.  It devalues prior investment in tinykitty 4*s like venom or carnage, and does little to alleviate the iso shortage.   To the contrary, vaulting increase the pressure to stay on the exercise wheel grinding away at the current 12 as fast as possible before they enter the vault.  anti-vaulting (this is me!)

    (3) the 3* middle class.  These players have all the old 4*s rostered, but were having a really hard time building a core group of 4* champs pre-vault because of dilution.  And to make things worse, having a handful of good 4*s covered and leveled isn't nearly as valuable as it used to be because 4* boosting is so strong.  It's getting harder and harder to hit 900 without 2x boosted 4* champs.  From this perspective, vaulting is great because it will allow these early transitioners much easier access to current 12 4*s, which means they can get into 4* champ play noticeably faster than before.  pro-vaulting

    (4) The 2* plebes.  These players don't yet have all 4* rostered, let alone covered.  These players are just tinykitty by vaulting.  It will take them much longer to collect a full roster,  which in turn suppresses their PVE rewards significantly and slows things down even further.  anti-vaulting.

    Obviously there will be the odd person here or there that doesn't fall into these categories, or holds a contrary opinion.  But I stand by this broad parsing of the effects of vaulting on different types of players and the resulting opinions of the new vaulting system. 
    I disagree, at least from my perspective.  I fit nicely into the 4* vet category, but I'm fine with vaulting.  Yes it changed my overall goals and strategy, but that's not a bad thing.  Since vaulting was introduced I champed Wasp, Medusa, Cage, Gwenpool, Blade and Carol.  Without vaulting I would have had the same amount of ISO to champ 6 characters, but they probably would have been Bucky, Kate, Drax, Fury, Rulk, etc.  

    Rulk jumps out on that list because he's top tier.  I just finally got his 13th cover a week or two ago, which took me over a year due to poor luck with rng.  To me that's what I like about vaulting.  New characters will get fully covered in months, not over a year.

    i don't have any over 300 yet, but I have IMHB and Peggy at 290+ and set as bonus heroes, so I expect them to hit 300 soon and maybe someday hit 370.
  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited April 2017
    Pants1000 said:
    I disagree, at least from my perspective.  I fit nicely into the 4* vet category, but I'm fine with vaulting.  Yes it changed my overall goals and strategy, but that's not a bad thing.  Since vaulting was introduced I champed Wasp, Medusa, Cage, Gwenpool, Blade and Carol.  Without vaulting I would have had the same amount of ISO to champ 6 characters, but they probably would have been Bucky, Kate, Drax, Fury, Rulk, etc.  

    Rulk jumps out on that list because he's top tier.  I just finally got his 13th cover a week or two ago, which took me over a year due to poor luck with rng.  To me that's what I like about vaulting.  New characters will get fully covered in months, not over a year.

    i don't have any over 300 yet, but I have IMHB and Peggy at 290+ and set as bonus heroes, so I expect them to hit 300 soon and maybe someday hit 370.
    So vaulting is good because you were able to champ wasp, medusa, cage, gwenpool, blade, and carol rather than WS, Kate, Drax, Fury, and Rulk?

    That's not an analysis of vaulting; it's a comparison of two different groups of 4*s.  The current 12 4*s may be good at the moment; but even if we assume that's true today it certainly won't always be the case.  If vaulting lasts long enough then the current 12 mix will go through good and bad phases like anything else. 

    As for my groupings, I am sure that some players in all 4 of my categories do not agree with my analysis.  I still think my analysis was more or less correct. 

    I think everyone agrees that covering new 4* characters faster is generally good for the game (just like everyone would rather have a bonus heroes system than nothing).  the debate is whether or not the benefit of faster champing for new releases is offset by the arbitrarily simultaneous vaulting of all older 4*s.  IMO the answer is pretty clearly no, but I am biased as per my own categorization of players.  What I really would like demi to comment on is their decision not to do the obvious thing and put vintage 4*s in Classic LTs.  the explanation offered by brigby was pure nonsense. 
  • BoyWonder1914
    BoyWonder1914 Posts: 884 Critical Contributor
    astrp3 said:
    BoyWonder1914 said:
    The only people who complain about dilution are the ones trying to get SPECIFIC characters fully covered, usually newer ones. To someone who didn't really care as long as more pulls proved useful at a higher rate, there was absolutely nothing wrong with an ever-increasing pool of characters to pull from.

    Not really true. I had a major problem with dilution and I am not trying to get specific covers. I just wanted to get some 4*s - any 4*s - that were useable and allowed me to further progress. I didn't care which specific ones they were, as long as they were not bottom tier. Dilution made that harder. Limited stores make it easier (though I wish they'd implemented them without vaulting).

    This really throws me off, because I'd imagine you would fare much better with a diluted pool than......well no pool at all. But I see where you're coming from, you're still at the mercy of RnG, which means stalkers and unicorns. I had people like 4 Cyke and Invisible Woman get covered ridiculous fast under the old system, whereas people like Spider-Gwen and Venom are still at 6 covers. 
  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    Vhailorx said:

    I think everyone agrees that covering new 4* characters faster is generally good for the game (just like everyone would rather have a bonus heroes system than nothing).  the debate is whether or not the benefit of faster champing for new releases is offset by the arbitrarily simultaneous vaulting of all older 4*s.  IMO the answer is pretty clearly no, but I am biased as per my own categorization of players.  What I really would like demi to comment on is their decision not to do the obvious thing and put vintage 4*s in Classic LTs.  the explanation offered by brigby was pure nonsense. 
    QFT

    I'm totally fine with having new 4* easier to champ.  They could very well have achieved this by making Latest Legends have the new 12 and doing something different with Classic, have all the vaulted, a subset of the vaulted, you choose 12 from vaulted, etc.  That IMO would have pleased a larger number of people.  

Categories