How many vaulted characters have you champed?
Comments
-
Champing the newest 4s is most effective if your goal is just having more characters reach max. But if your goal is anything other then this it'd not more effective. Is focusing on a small subset of less powerful characters better? Is ignoring characters they demand you have to play the game effective in any way? So you are absolutely but only partially correct.0
-
I agree with this, I currently have 9 of 12 champed, and 40 of 51 total. I just champed Venom (Eddie) because I received 1 cover from Meet R&G, and have another coming up today in resupply. My next champion will be Winter Soldier, as I have 3 Lazy Cap covers sitting on my vine, and Lazy Cap at lvl 264, and a Dup at lvl 182. I will be getting 2 Winter Soldier covers from these champ rewards.BoyWonder1914 said:
But there's the problem....just because the odds are lower doesn't mean that the LT Mordo gives won't provide a THEN unusable cover either. In either case of who you champ, CP and LTs can be used at your leisure. If you've still got more of the Token12 to go after Mordo and aren't sure that the pull will be usable, or you champ the vaulted person and know you've still got more to go, the choice is yours if you wanna hold on to that token.
You can't stop resupply from feeding you a cover. You don't know that a heroic, event token, or taco is giving you a 4-star until you've opened it. It makes no sense to stall progress on your 3-star champs when they hit 182, 222, or 264, because the champ rewards provided after get sooooo much better after the 223 threshold. These instances essentially can't be prevented, and though there are varying degrees of frequency, most of them are seldom enough that it truly feels like giving up a huge opportunity if you don't use the cover. Who knows when they'll happen again. All I'm saying, is that if a person feels strongly enough about that, that it causes them to place a higher value on the cover than more potential champ rewards on a Token12, then that's their prerogative. You don't get to tell someone that they're using their resources "inefficiently", when you don't know how long they may have been waiting to finally champ that Iceman, TJ, etc.
I currently do not have any of current 12 dying on the vine, with only C&D of the 3 unchamped latest at max cover.1 -
Optimally keeping up with the current 12 is a better way to progress if you don't want to hoard. If you're the type to keep blowing cp as most players are, then that would be the way to play. I don't like seeing multiple 4* cards on the vine that expire within days of each other.
If I were to champ vaulted characters I would be hoarding to make sure I don't waste any cp or LTs. Pick one character and hoard until that character is done.
2 -
Sure, the more champs total idea made more sense in my head than it should have. But my scenario was: 2 miles covers and 2 Fist covers. Miles needed 100k iso less, which is 2-3 days, that matters when they are already expiring. In my head, selling those 2 Fist covers meant I can champ Miles, then champ Fist since he is a progression reward next. Even if he wasn't I could pull another one soon. So that means in the next 2 weeks I would have champed Miles and Fist, instead of just Fist, with Miles getting champed somewhere after a few months. Yes I should champ all 12 first, but I don't have the 14th cover on hand yet.Fightmastermpq said:
Come on. The bulk of the ISO to champ is in the last 20 levels or something. You are talking about a day or two of ISO already invested in most of your 4s. If you do have vaulted 4s at 260+ then yeah, by all means champ them - but when we talk broadly about champing old vs new we are talking about what the best way to spend ~350k ISO is.Straycat said:The "more champs total" is based on iso, yes, but, and this might just be my experience, most of my pre vaulted characters already have some iso invested in them, so it takes less time to champ.
No, this is faulty logic. That LT for champing Peggy will always be there whether you champ now or later, it's only wasted if you sell it.....which you are far more likely to do if you champ now compared to later when you have all the newest 12s champed.Straycat said:And sure, I play short sightedly, because the long term is ever expanding. If I know eventually I can reach the point where all latest 12 are champed, and I have 2 covers now for a vaulted character, I think it could be better to champ the vaulted character first.
Again, in my scenario, its 2 latest covers wasted vs 2 vaulted covers wasted. So there is waste either way. For me, since it is harder to get vaulted covers, its harder to sell them. And those 2 champ levels sold of a vaulted character include an LT, and the 2 champ levels in 2 weeks for a latest 12 character might be 2500 iso and 50 hp.
I know, that's why I said "every cover you pull". The vast majority of 4*s that we get come from LTs, and so this should be the first area to target for minimizing waste. A very tiny amount of waste in 3* champ or daily resupply rewards doesn't make up for a much larger percentage of waste from your main source of 4* covers.Straycat said:The no waste ever scenario doesn't account for resupply or 3* champ rewards,
That LT would be there later, but the Peggy cover on hand wouldn't be. In my case, the resupply Miles and 3* Spiderman reward Miles would not come again until Spiderman is max champed (or bonus). A 3* champ reward is small waste, but it also took years to earn, so I don't want to waste it. Same with a day 900 resupply cover.
This thread started as a question of whether or not people did go against the math and "waste" iso on vaulted characters. So I understand that your way is the way to min max the game. I don't even have a problem with vaulting. But to me, vaulting lowered the "value" of LTs. A dupe pull pre vaulting was terrible, but now it barely registers. I don't mind wasting a cover or 2 since there will be plenty available.
2 -
You can plan for these things. When you open a heroic you're only chances for 4*s are the current 12 and your bonus(es). You know in advance which covers and colors are granted at each level for 3*s so you can set BHs accordingly to get covers you need when you need them. If you have one coming you can't use for a character with 11 or 12 then set them as a BH and save up CP to buy covers if you have to save that cover from waste. However, ultimately, sometimes you just have to except the waste. I try my best to not waste, but there are times it's unavoidable and it's part of the game. I would never throw away/stay 3* progress waiting on cover.BoyWonder1914 said:
*snip*Jaedenkaal said:
Well that escalated quickly.BoyWonder1914 said:More of your opinionated tinykitty, and it doesn't even make sense. The LT for champing that latest person will always be there too, and theoretically will be there even longer because the latest person has greater odds for you getting that cover again.
A vaulted cover? Your only shot is placement/progression, a 3* star champ reward, a Bonus Hero, or some lucky vault pull - all instances that occur extremely infrequently. A seldom occurence, which is practically the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of the word "rare". So no, you don't get to tell someone who understands the rarity of that occurrence that they shouldn't value that cover. GTFO dude, seriously. Get it in your head that not everyone gives 2 flying hoots how many potential champ levels a person will rake in. Quit preaching your rhetoric to people like they're failures at life for not seeing everything YOUR WAY. Go play with your action figures or something.
I believe he's referring to the cover you get for cashing in that LT; if you champed Peggy instead of Mordo, you could still pull yet another Mordo cover from the LT, except now you don't have the ISO to champ Mordo, so you basically sold the LT that you got from champing Peggy. Obviously that won't happen every time, but it does increase the odds of it happening, so over time, you'll be selling more covers by champing vaulted characters before the latest 12.
You can't stop resupply from feeding you a cover. You don't know that a heroic, event token, or taco is giving you a 4-star until you've opened it. It makes no sense to stall progress on your 3-star champs when they hit 182, 222, or 264, because the champ rewards provided after get sooooo much better after the 223 threshold.1 -
I think where this discussion gets lost is that everyone grinds at a different pace. That being said, the value of the cover is left up to you. Me personally, my bonus heroes are 5* Thanos/ Medusa / the 3* closest to maxed 266 that can be farmed. I.e. Cap/ Wolvie. You know the 2*s that lead to 3*s and such. I think if your bonus heroes are vaulted characters then your daily grind is of a different path. All play styles accepted as long as you're in my queue for 40 points.0
-
Ok, please point to where exactly I implied that there was no value in champing the newest 4's. Just because I'm saying its not right to de-value vaulted 4s, doesn't automatically mean that I'm preaching against champing the newest 12. I'm champing both currently, and I think I even said that in my original post to this thread. However, if I have to choose between a vaulted person that I value highly and a newer person that I can easily just pull more covers for after I'm done, then I'm going to champ the vaulted person while I've still go the time. CP is plentiful enough that I'm confident I will pull that character again. The newest guy is going to get champed regardless. But I have a MUCH shorter timeframe to use that vaulted cover. I'll live with throwing 1 or 2 champ levels away. But that's my choice as a player, and a person should have a right to make that choice without being subjected to criticism just because someone else feels differently.Fightmastermpq said:
I'm not disputing the definition of rare, I'm simply saying that in this case "rare" does not equate to "more valuable" as it typically does in most other scenarios. In fact, in this case the fact that something is harder to get actually makes it less valuable.BoyWonder1914 said:
More of your opinionated tinykitty, and it doesn't even make sense. The LT for champing that latest person will always be there too, and theoretically will be there even longer because the latest person has greater odds for you getting that cover again.Fightmastermpq said:
No, this is faulty logic. That LT for champing Peggy will always be there whether you champ now or later, it's only wasted if you sell it.....which you are far more likely to do if you champ now compared to later when you have all the newest 12s champed.Straycat said:And sure, I play short sightedly, because the long term is ever expanding. If I know eventually I can reach the point where all latest 12 are champed, and I have 2 covers now for a vaulted character, I think it could be better to champ the vaulted character first.
Again, in my scenario, its 2 latest covers wasted vs 2 vaulted covers wasted. So there is waste either way. For me, since it is harder to get vaulted covers, its harder to sell them. And those 2 champ levels sold of a vaulted character include an LT, and the 2 champ levels in 2 weeks for a latest 12 character might be 2500 iso and 50 hp.
A vaulted cover? Your only shot is placement/progression, a 3* star champ reward, a Bonus Hero, or some lucky vault pull - all instances that occur extremely infrequently. A seldom occurence, which is practically the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of the word "rare". So no, you don't get to tell someone who understands the rarity of that occurrence that they shouldn't value that cover. GTFO dude, seriously. Get it in your head that not everyone gives 2 flying hoots how many potential champ levels a person will rake in. Quit preaching your rhetoric to people like they're failures at life for not seeing everything YOUR WAY. Go play with your action figures or something.
Look I'm not trying to tell you how to play, I'm simply explaining what the more optimal method is under the current mechanics that have been given to us. You can play however you want. I don't care. But I think it is important that others at least recognize that certain strategies are less efficient than others so that they can make a more informed decision.
If you said "yeah, you are right - it does make more sense to champ the newest 4*s......but I like these old characters and don't care all that much about playing 'optimally' so I'm choosing to champ these vaulted characters instead." Then we'd be done. The discussion is over at that point because we agree on how the current game mechanics work, and I have no business telling you how to play your game. But you keep insisting that champing the newest 4s isn't more efficient and that's just plain wrong. So I will continue to tell you that it's wrong, and continue to give detailed examples and explanations as to why it's wrong so that others don't believe your misinformation or take your opinion as fact.
No one's making an argument here about how vaulting is screwing them over, or blaming vaulting for not having enough ISO to champ someone.1 -
BoyWonder1914 said:
Ok, please point to where exactly I implied that there was no value in champing the newest 4's. Just because I'm saying its not right to de-value vaulted 4s, doesn't automatically mean that I'm preaching against champing the newest 12. I'm champing both currently, and I think I even said that in my original post to this thread. However, if I have to choose between a vaulted person that I value highly and a newer person that I can easily just pull more covers for after I'm done, then I'm going to champ the vaulted person while I've still go the time. CP is plentiful enough that I'm confident I will pull that character again. The newest guy is going to get champed regardless. But I have a MUCH shorter timeframe to use that vaulted cover. I'll live with throwing 1 or 2 champ levels away. But that's my choice as a player, and a person should have a right to make that choice without being subjected to criticism just because someone else feels differently.Fightmastermpq said:
I'm not disputing the definition of rare, I'm simply saying that in this case "rare" does not equate to "more valuable" as it typically does in most other scenarios. In fact, in this case the fact that something is harder to get actually makes it less valuable.BoyWonder1914 said:
More of your opinionated tinykitty, and it doesn't even make sense. The LT for champing that latest person will always be there too, and theoretically will be there even longer because the latest person has greater odds for you getting that cover again.Fightmastermpq said:
No, this is faulty logic. That LT for champing Peggy will always be there whether you champ now or later, it's only wasted if you sell it.....which you are far more likely to do if you champ now compared to later when you have all the newest 12s champed.Straycat said:And sure, I play short sightedly, because the long term is ever expanding. If I know eventually I can reach the point where all latest 12 are champed, and I have 2 covers now for a vaulted character, I think it could be better to champ the vaulted character first.
Again, in my scenario, its 2 latest covers wasted vs 2 vaulted covers wasted. So there is waste either way. For me, since it is harder to get vaulted covers, its harder to sell them. And those 2 champ levels sold of a vaulted character include an LT, and the 2 champ levels in 2 weeks for a latest 12 character might be 2500 iso and 50 hp.
A vaulted cover? Your only shot is placement/progression, a 3* star champ reward, a Bonus Hero, or some lucky vault pull - all instances that occur extremely infrequently. A seldom occurence, which is practically the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of the word "rare". So no, you don't get to tell someone who understands the rarity of that occurrence that they shouldn't value that cover. GTFO dude, seriously. Get it in your head that not everyone gives 2 flying hoots how many potential champ levels a person will rake in. Quit preaching your rhetoric to people like they're failures at life for not seeing everything YOUR WAY. Go play with your action figures or something.
Look I'm not trying to tell you how to play, I'm simply explaining what the more optimal method is under the current mechanics that have been given to us. You can play however you want. I don't care. But I think it is important that others at least recognize that certain strategies are less efficient than others so that they can make a more informed decision.
If you said "yeah, you are right - it does make more sense to champ the newest 4*s......but I like these old characters and don't care all that much about playing 'optimally' so I'm choosing to champ these vaulted characters instead." Then we'd be done. The discussion is over at that point because we agree on how the current game mechanics work, and I have no business telling you how to play your game. But you keep insisting that champing the newest 4s isn't more efficient and that's just plain wrong. So I will continue to tell you that it's wrong, and continue to give detailed examples and explanations as to why it's wrong so that others don't believe your misinformation or take your opinion as fact.
No one's making an argument here about how vaulting is screwing them over, or blaming vaulting for not having enough ISO to champ someone.
But you are wrong. The vaulted 4s have been de-valued. And continuing to treat them as if they have the same value as they did before is inefficient or sub-optimal roster strategy. I'm not trying to take away your choice, just pointing out that it's not the most optimal choice you could make. Obviously you are free to make whatever sub-optimal choices you want to in life.1 -
And you continue to fail to see that I don't give a **** what YOU or someone else considers to be "optimal". Value and what's considered optimal is up that player and what they want to do with their own resources. YOU don't get to tell someone that they're wrong. Who the hell are you?Fightmastermpq said:BoyWonder1914 said:
Ok, please point to where exactly I implied that there was no value in champing the newest 4's. Just because I'm saying its not right to de-value vaulted 4s, doesn't automatically mean that I'm preaching against champing the newest 12. I'm champing both currently, and I think I even said that in my original post to this thread. However, if I have to choose between a vaulted person that I value highly and a newer person that I can easily just pull more covers for after I'm done, then I'm going to champ the vaulted person while I've still go the time. CP is plentiful enough that I'm confident I will pull that character again. The newest guy is going to get champed regardless. But I have a MUCH shorter timeframe to use that vaulted cover. I'll live with throwing 1 or 2 champ levels away. But that's my choice as a player, and a person should have a right to make that choice without being subjected to criticism just because someone else feels differently.Fightmastermpq said:
I'm not disputing the definition of rare, I'm simply saying that in this case "rare" does not equate to "more valuable" as it typically does in most other scenarios. In fact, in this case the fact that something is harder to get actually makes it less valuable.BoyWonder1914 said:
More of your opinionated tinykitty, and it doesn't even make sense. The LT for champing that latest person will always be there too, and theoretically will be there even longer because the latest person has greater odds for you getting that cover again.Fightmastermpq said:
No, this is faulty logic. That LT for champing Peggy will always be there whether you champ now or later, it's only wasted if you sell it.....which you are far more likely to do if you champ now compared to later when you have all the newest 12s champed.Straycat said:And sure, I play short sightedly, because the long term is ever expanding. If I know eventually I can reach the point where all latest 12 are champed, and I have 2 covers now for a vaulted character, I think it could be better to champ the vaulted character first.
Again, in my scenario, its 2 latest covers wasted vs 2 vaulted covers wasted. So there is waste either way. For me, since it is harder to get vaulted covers, its harder to sell them. And those 2 champ levels sold of a vaulted character include an LT, and the 2 champ levels in 2 weeks for a latest 12 character might be 2500 iso and 50 hp.
A vaulted cover? Your only shot is placement/progression, a 3* star champ reward, a Bonus Hero, or some lucky vault pull - all instances that occur extremely infrequently. A seldom occurence, which is practically the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of the word "rare". So no, you don't get to tell someone who understands the rarity of that occurrence that they shouldn't value that cover. GTFO dude, seriously. Get it in your head that not everyone gives 2 flying hoots how many potential champ levels a person will rake in. Quit preaching your rhetoric to people like they're failures at life for not seeing everything YOUR WAY. Go play with your action figures or something.
Look I'm not trying to tell you how to play, I'm simply explaining what the more optimal method is under the current mechanics that have been given to us. You can play however you want. I don't care. But I think it is important that others at least recognize that certain strategies are less efficient than others so that they can make a more informed decision.
If you said "yeah, you are right - it does make more sense to champ the newest 4*s......but I like these old characters and don't care all that much about playing 'optimally' so I'm choosing to champ these vaulted characters instead." Then we'd be done. The discussion is over at that point because we agree on how the current game mechanics work, and I have no business telling you how to play your game. But you keep insisting that champing the newest 4s isn't more efficient and that's just plain wrong. So I will continue to tell you that it's wrong, and continue to give detailed examples and explanations as to why it's wrong so that others don't believe your misinformation or take your opinion as fact.
No one's making an argument here about how vaulting is screwing them over, or blaming vaulting for not having enough ISO to champ someone.
But you are wrong. The vaulted 4s have been de-valued. And continuing to treat them as if they have the same value as they did before is inefficient or sub-optimal roster strategy. I'm not trying to take away your choice, just pointing out that it's not the most optimal choice you could make. Obviously you are free to make whatever sub-optimal choices you want to in life.
No one's jumping all over you for preaching that its somehow wrong to softcap characters, so hop off.3 -
I was looking up the definition of the word optimal to point to the fact that optimal is objective, but...BoyWonder1914 said:
And you continue to fail to see that I don't give a tinykitty what YOU or someone else considers to be "optimal". Value and what's considered optimal is up that player and what they want to do with their own resources. YOU don't get to tell someone that they're wrong. Who the hell are you?Fightmastermpq said:BoyWonder1914 said:
Ok, please point to where exactly I implied that there was no value in champing the newest 4's. Just because I'm saying its not right to de-value vaulted 4s, doesn't automatically mean that I'm preaching against champing the newest 12. I'm champing both currently, and I think I even said that in my original post to this thread. However, if I have to choose between a vaulted person that I value highly and a newer person that I can easily just pull more covers for after I'm done, then I'm going to champ the vaulted person while I've still go the time. CP is plentiful enough that I'm confident I will pull that character again. The newest guy is going to get champed regardless. But I have a MUCH shorter timeframe to use that vaulted cover. I'll live with throwing 1 or 2 champ levels away. But that's my choice as a player, and a person should have a right to make that choice without being subjected to criticism just because someone else feels differently.Fightmastermpq said:
I'm not disputing the definition of rare, I'm simply saying that in this case "rare" does not equate to "more valuable" as it typically does in most other scenarios. In fact, in this case the fact that something is harder to get actually makes it less valuable.BoyWonder1914 said:
More of your opinionated tinykitty, and it doesn't even make sense. The LT for champing that latest person will always be there too, and theoretically will be there even longer because the latest person has greater odds for you getting that cover again.Fightmastermpq said:
No, this is faulty logic. That LT for champing Peggy will always be there whether you champ now or later, it's only wasted if you sell it.....which you are far more likely to do if you champ now compared to later when you have all the newest 12s champed.Straycat said:And sure, I play short sightedly, because the long term is ever expanding. If I know eventually I can reach the point where all latest 12 are champed, and I have 2 covers now for a vaulted character, I think it could be better to champ the vaulted character first.
Again, in my scenario, its 2 latest covers wasted vs 2 vaulted covers wasted. So there is waste either way. For me, since it is harder to get vaulted covers, its harder to sell them. And those 2 champ levels sold of a vaulted character include an LT, and the 2 champ levels in 2 weeks for a latest 12 character might be 2500 iso and 50 hp.
A vaulted cover? Your only shot is placement/progression, a 3* star champ reward, a Bonus Hero, or some lucky vault pull - all instances that occur extremely infrequently. A seldom occurence, which is practically the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of the word "rare". So no, you don't get to tell someone who understands the rarity of that occurrence that they shouldn't value that cover. GTFO dude, seriously. Get it in your head that not everyone gives 2 flying hoots how many potential champ levels a person will rake in. Quit preaching your rhetoric to people like they're failures at life for not seeing everything YOUR WAY. Go play with your action figures or something.
Look I'm not trying to tell you how to play, I'm simply explaining what the more optimal method is under the current mechanics that have been given to us. You can play however you want. I don't care. But I think it is important that others at least recognize that certain strategies are less efficient than others so that they can make a more informed decision.
If you said "yeah, you are right - it does make more sense to champ the newest 4*s......but I like these old characters and don't care all that much about playing 'optimally' so I'm choosing to champ these vaulted characters instead." Then we'd be done. The discussion is over at that point because we agree on how the current game mechanics work, and I have no business telling you how to play your game. But you keep insisting that champing the newest 4s isn't more efficient and that's just plain wrong. So I will continue to tell you that it's wrong, and continue to give detailed examples and explanations as to why it's wrong so that others don't believe your misinformation or take your opinion as fact.
No one's making an argument here about how vaulting is screwing them over, or blaming vaulting for not having enough ISO to champ someone.
But you are wrong. The vaulted 4s have been de-valued. And continuing to treat them as if they have the same value as they did before is inefficient or sub-optimal roster strategy. I'm not trying to take away your choice, just pointing out that it's not the most optimal choice you could make. Obviously you are free to make whatever sub-optimal choices you want to in life.
No one's jumping all over you for preaching that its somehow wrong to softcap characters, so hop off.op·ti·malIn light of this I can't say that going with your personal preference is sub-optimal, it can be based on your own personal favoritism.ˈäptəməl/adjective- best or most favorable; optimum.
But in general gameplay optimal is what Fight is describing and he's right in that regard. But people can have their own personal non-gameplay optimal? Can we end the semantics fight and get back on topic please?3 -
My point is that it's up to the individual player at the end of the day how they choose to use their resources. The amount of ISO you have, how well you think you can place in any particular event, how much time you have to play the game, what covers you have on your vine, the expiration of covers on your vine, what characters you already have champed, what characters are fully covered........ALL of these things are 100% unique to each individual player. Because of this, every player's "optimal" path forward is unique unto them, and they are going to make the choices with their resources that make the most sense to them, based on their situation.broll said:
I was looking up the definition of the word optimal to point to the fact that optimal is objective, but...BoyWonder1914 said:
And you continue to fail to see that I don't give a tinykitty what YOU or someone else considers to be "optimal". Value and what's considered optimal is up that player and what they want to do with their own resources. YOU don't get to tell someone that they're wrong. Who the hell are you?Fightmastermpq said:BoyWonder1914 said:
Ok, please point to where exactly I implied that there was no value in champing the newest 4's. Just because I'm saying its not right to de-value vaulted 4s, doesn't automatically mean that I'm preaching against champing the newest 12. I'm champing both currently, and I think I even said that in my original post to this thread. However, if I have to choose between a vaulted person that I value highly and a newer person that I can easily just pull more covers for after I'm done, then I'm going to champ the vaulted person while I've still go the time. CP is plentiful enough that I'm confident I will pull that character again. The newest guy is going to get champed regardless. But I have a MUCH shorter timeframe to use that vaulted cover. I'll live with throwing 1 or 2 champ levels away. But that's my choice as a player, and a person should have a right to make that choice without being subjected to criticism just because someone else feels differently.Fightmastermpq said:
I'm not disputing the definition of rare, I'm simply saying that in this case "rare" does not equate to "more valuable" as it typically does in most other scenarios. In fact, in this case the fact that something is harder to get actually makes it less valuable.BoyWonder1914 said:
More of your opinionated tinykitty, and it doesn't even make sense. The LT for champing that latest person will always be there too, and theoretically will be there even longer because the latest person has greater odds for you getting that cover again.Fightmastermpq said:
No, this is faulty logic. That LT for champing Peggy will always be there whether you champ now or later, it's only wasted if you sell it.....which you are far more likely to do if you champ now compared to later when you have all the newest 12s champed.Straycat said:And sure, I play short sightedly, because the long term is ever expanding. If I know eventually I can reach the point where all latest 12 are champed, and I have 2 covers now for a vaulted character, I think it could be better to champ the vaulted character first.
Again, in my scenario, its 2 latest covers wasted vs 2 vaulted covers wasted. So there is waste either way. For me, since it is harder to get vaulted covers, its harder to sell them. And those 2 champ levels sold of a vaulted character include an LT, and the 2 champ levels in 2 weeks for a latest 12 character might be 2500 iso and 50 hp.
A vaulted cover? Your only shot is placement/progression, a 3* star champ reward, a Bonus Hero, or some lucky vault pull - all instances that occur extremely infrequently. A seldom occurence, which is practically the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of the word "rare". So no, you don't get to tell someone who understands the rarity of that occurrence that they shouldn't value that cover. GTFO dude, seriously. Get it in your head that not everyone gives 2 flying hoots how many potential champ levels a person will rake in. Quit preaching your rhetoric to people like they're failures at life for not seeing everything YOUR WAY. Go play with your action figures or something.
Look I'm not trying to tell you how to play, I'm simply explaining what the more optimal method is under the current mechanics that have been given to us. You can play however you want. I don't care. But I think it is important that others at least recognize that certain strategies are less efficient than others so that they can make a more informed decision.
If you said "yeah, you are right - it does make more sense to champ the newest 4*s......but I like these old characters and don't care all that much about playing 'optimally' so I'm choosing to champ these vaulted characters instead." Then we'd be done. The discussion is over at that point because we agree on how the current game mechanics work, and I have no business telling you how to play your game. But you keep insisting that champing the newest 4s isn't more efficient and that's just plain wrong. So I will continue to tell you that it's wrong, and continue to give detailed examples and explanations as to why it's wrong so that others don't believe your misinformation or take your opinion as fact.
No one's making an argument here about how vaulting is screwing them over, or blaming vaulting for not having enough ISO to champ someone.
But you are wrong. The vaulted 4s have been de-valued. And continuing to treat them as if they have the same value as they did before is inefficient or sub-optimal roster strategy. I'm not trying to take away your choice, just pointing out that it's not the most optimal choice you could make. Obviously you are free to make whatever sub-optimal choices you want to in life.
No one's jumping all over you for preaching that its somehow wrong to softcap characters, so hop off.op·ti·malIn light of this I can't say that going with your personal preference is sub-optimal, it can be based on your own personal favoritism.ˈäptəməl/adjective- best or most favorable; optimum.
But in general gameplay optimal is what Fight is describing and he's right in that regard. But people can have their own personal non-gameplay optimal? Can we end the semantics fight and get back on topic please?
Therefore, you don't get to tell another player that the way they play the game, or the way they use their resources is "wrong". You don't get to tell someone else that they're doing things "sub-optimally", just because it's not what YOU would do. Me saying that "more iso would be nice" doesn't give someone else the right to then say, "well, you must be using your iso inefficiently". It's one thing if I say, "Man, I feel like I'm NEVER going to be able to champ all the latest 12, what am I doing wrong?" Or "The game just doesn't give enough iso for me to champ the latest 12". The former is actually ASKING for criticism, the latter is making an unsubstantiated claim about the game that can easily be proven wrong.
However when I say, "I'm focusing on my Peggy right now instead of my Riri, because ____", then it's no longer your place to tell me that I'm wrong, or don't understand the consequences well enough. Clearly I've weighed the value of whatever potential champ levels I could be giving up, and have decided that I value having that person's skill set as part my repertoire more. Doesn't mean that other person won't get champed, doesn't mean I don't value 4-star champ rewards and having a level 300+ 4-star character. More importantly, it doesn't mean you get to criticize the way I play the game.3 -
*Get this thread back on topic and keep it civil or I'm going to lock it*3
-
"favorable" and "favoritism" are not the same thing. In this case "favorable" means "to the advantage of someone or something." And so optimal is that which provides the greatest advantage which except in a handful of exceptions is going to be essentially ignoring the vaulted 4s as I have been saying.broll said:
I was looking up the definition of the word optimal to point to the fact that optimal is objective, but...BoyWonder1914 said:
And you continue to fail to see that I don't give a tinykitty what YOU or someone else considers to be "optimal". Value and what's considered optimal is up that player and what they want to do with their own resources. YOU don't get to tell someone that they're wrong. Who the hell are you?Fightmastermpq said:BoyWonder1914 said:
Ok, please point to where exactly I implied that there was no value in champing the newest 4's. Just because I'm saying its not right to de-value vaulted 4s, doesn't automatically mean that I'm preaching against champing the newest 12. I'm champing both currently, and I think I even said that in my original post to this thread. However, if I have to choose between a vaulted person that I value highly and a newer person that I can easily just pull more covers for after I'm done, then I'm going to champ the vaulted person while I've still go the time. CP is plentiful enough that I'm confident I will pull that character again. The newest guy is going to get champed regardless. But I have a MUCH shorter timeframe to use that vaulted cover. I'll live with throwing 1 or 2 champ levels away. But that's my choice as a player, and a person should have a right to make that choice without being subjected to criticism just because someone else feels differently.Fightmastermpq said:
I'm not disputing the definition of rare, I'm simply saying that in this case "rare" does not equate to "more valuable" as it typically does in most other scenarios. In fact, in this case the fact that something is harder to get actually makes it less valuable.BoyWonder1914 said:
More of your opinionated tinykitty, and it doesn't even make sense. The LT for champing that latest person will always be there too, and theoretically will be there even longer because the latest person has greater odds for you getting that cover again.Fightmastermpq said:
No, this is faulty logic. That LT for champing Peggy will always be there whether you champ now or later, it's only wasted if you sell it.....which you are far more likely to do if you champ now compared to later when you have all the newest 12s champed.Straycat said:And sure, I play short sightedly, because the long term is ever expanding. If I know eventually I can reach the point where all latest 12 are champed, and I have 2 covers now for a vaulted character, I think it could be better to champ the vaulted character first.
Again, in my scenario, its 2 latest covers wasted vs 2 vaulted covers wasted. So there is waste either way. For me, since it is harder to get vaulted covers, its harder to sell them. And those 2 champ levels sold of a vaulted character include an LT, and the 2 champ levels in 2 weeks for a latest 12 character might be 2500 iso and 50 hp.
A vaulted cover? Your only shot is placement/progression, a 3* star champ reward, a Bonus Hero, or some lucky vault pull - all instances that occur extremely infrequently. A seldom occurence, which is practically the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of the word "rare". So no, you don't get to tell someone who understands the rarity of that occurrence that they shouldn't value that cover. GTFO dude, seriously. Get it in your head that not everyone gives 2 flying hoots how many potential champ levels a person will rake in. Quit preaching your rhetoric to people like they're failures at life for not seeing everything YOUR WAY. Go play with your action figures or something.
Look I'm not trying to tell you how to play, I'm simply explaining what the more optimal method is under the current mechanics that have been given to us. You can play however you want. I don't care. But I think it is important that others at least recognize that certain strategies are less efficient than others so that they can make a more informed decision.
If you said "yeah, you are right - it does make more sense to champ the newest 4*s......but I like these old characters and don't care all that much about playing 'optimally' so I'm choosing to champ these vaulted characters instead." Then we'd be done. The discussion is over at that point because we agree on how the current game mechanics work, and I have no business telling you how to play your game. But you keep insisting that champing the newest 4s isn't more efficient and that's just plain wrong. So I will continue to tell you that it's wrong, and continue to give detailed examples and explanations as to why it's wrong so that others don't believe your misinformation or take your opinion as fact.
No one's making an argument here about how vaulting is screwing them over, or blaming vaulting for not having enough ISO to champ someone.
But you are wrong. The vaulted 4s have been de-valued. And continuing to treat them as if they have the same value as they did before is inefficient or sub-optimal roster strategy. I'm not trying to take away your choice, just pointing out that it's not the most optimal choice you could make. Obviously you are free to make whatever sub-optimal choices you want to in life.
No one's jumping all over you for preaching that its somehow wrong to softcap characters, so hop off.op·ti·malIn light of this I can't say that going with your personal preference is sub-optimal, it can be based on your own personal favoritism.ˈäptəməl/adjective- best or most favorable; optimum.
But in general gameplay optimal is what Fight is describing and he's right in that regard. But people can have their own personal non-gameplay optimal? Can we end the semantics fight and get back on topic please?
edit: It would be like trying to claim that playing PvE by doing all 7 clears at sub open was optimal because that was what fit your personal schedule the best. It might be "favorable" for you, but it's not the optimal method defined by the game mechanics.1 -
I agree with all of this.BoyWonder1914 said:My point is that it's up to the individual player at the end of the day how they choose to use their resources. The amount of ISO you have, how well you think you can place in any particular event, how much time you have to play the game, what covers you have on your vine, the expiration of covers on your vine, what characters you already have champed, what characters are fully covered........ALL of these things are 100% unique to each individual player. Because of this, every player's "optimal" path forward is unique unto them, and they are going to make the choices with their resources that make the most sense to them, based on their situation.Therefore, you don't get to tell another player that the way they play the game, or the way they use their resources is "wrong". You don't get to tell someone else that they're doing things "sub-optimally", just because it's not what YOU would do. Me saying that "more iso would be nice" doesn't give someone else the right to then say, "well, you must be using your iso inefficiently". It's one thing if I say, "Man, I feel like I'm NEVER going to be able to champ all the latest 12, what am I doing wrong?" Or "The game just doesn't give enough iso for me to champ the latest 12". The former is actually ASKING for criticism, the latter is making an unsubstantiated claim about the game that can easily be proven wrong.
I don't care how you play the game or how you use your resources, and I'm not telling you how to do either of those things. I'm saying that the way you use your resources is not optimal, and I've explained exactly why that is.However when I say, "I'm focusing on my Peggy right now instead of my Riri, because ____", then it's no longer your place to tell me that I'm wrong, or don't understand the consequences well enough. Clearly I've weighed the value of whatever potential champ levels I could be giving up, and have decided that I value having that person's skill set as part my repertoire more. Doesn't mean that other person won't get champed, doesn't mean I don't value 4-star champ rewards and having a level 300+ 4-star character. More importantly, it doesn't mean you get to criticize the way I play the game.
People have every right to play sub-optimally, but what they don't have the right to do is complain about an ISO shortage after they've spent theirr ISO inefficiently. That's my only point.1 -
When this system went active, I had 4 vaulted characters that weren't cover maxed (Drax, Mr. Fantastic, Punisher, War Machine).
Embarrassingly I used Heroes for Hire to cover max War Machine & Mr. Fan, even at the 3600 price.
I was lucky to have had the 2500 price before, and bought that once for an Agent Venom to cover max & champ him cause I had like 4 covers in my queue at the time.
Drax & Punisher are both one cover away, so from now on I will only buy this if it is the final cover for either one of them, or if it's the final cover of an active character and I have their covers in my queue that I can't use, which would be champ levels.
I have about 5 cover maxed vaulted characters, but since I'll never get more covers for them (unless they are the featured PVE 4 Star), and with effectively a countdown clock on the current active 12, there is zero incentive to spend ISO to champ a vaulted character.
I'd only do it if I had every single active 4 Star champed, and even then I'd still probably hoard, waiting for the next 4 Star release.
After all, the main reason to champ them is to get the champ rewards, but with vaulting that practically never happens.0 -
I pooped after I took a shower this morning. It was very sub-optimal. Obviously, I would have rather done it the other way around. Sometimes things just don't work that way.
Joking aside, think about that point for a second. You're all sitting here arguing about what is optimal or not. Playing the way you want is the only optimal strategy. Here is why:
No matter how many Latest/Classic pulls you generate per month you are completely still at the mercy of RNG. ISO should be invested in any character you can champion, vaulted or not. Why? Here's why: You could let that "Peggy" cover go for ISO so that you can save ISO for the "latest 12" and guess what...if you keep pulling the same color cover 5+ times at the end of the day you're going to have a bunch of ISO and no champions.
We don't have any data to determine how often it happens but we know it happens because people are talking about getting (example here) "15th blue cover for my 5/1/1 RiRi". She's not more valuable at 5/1/1 than a 270 Peggy, right? Add to that, RNG may be giving you covers for lesser latest 12 characters rather than Carol or Medusa. That's no fun when you pass on a good 4* to champion. Oh, and yes this too...because of the luck factor, you could finally champ 4* Agent Venom and then see no more covers (yes, its possible) for him. So you played "optimally" and have a 270 AV instead of a 270 Peggy.
**** happens. Everyone play the way you want. Arguing does not change other people's minds, believe it or not.7 -
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Beer40 said:I pooped after I took a shower this morning. It was very sub-optimal. Obviously, I would have rather done it the other way around. Sometimes things just don't work that way.
The like button just wasn't enough........
0 -
This is simply not true. Optimal and "right for you" are not automatically equivalent.Beer40 said:Playing the way you want is the only optimal strategy. Here is why:Beer40 said:
No matter how many Latest/Classic pulls you generate per month you are completely still at the mercy of RNG. ISO should be invested in any character you can champion, vaulted or not. Why? Here's why: You could let that "Peggy" cover go for ISO so that you can save ISO for the "latest 12" and guess what...if you keep pulling the same color cover 5+ times at the end of the day you're going to have a bunch of ISO and no champions.
We don't have any data to determine how often it happens but we know it happens because people are talking about getting (example here) "15th blue cover for my 5/1/1 RiRi". She's not more valuable at 5/1/1 than a 270 Peggy, right? Add to that, RNG may be giving you covers for lesser latest 12 characters rather than Carol or Medusa. That's no fun when you pass on a good 4* to champion. Oh, and yes this too...because of the luck factor, you could finally champ 4* Agent Venom and then see no more covers (yes, its possible) for him. So you played "optimally" and have a 270 AV instead of a 270 Peggy.You need only apply this logic to a game of blackjack to see why it is false. "I can't control what cards I'll be dealt, therefore I can play any way I like and it won't matter." That's not how blackjack works. There IS an optimal Blackjack strategy, and it is designed to give the best results, over time, on average, taking into account random card selection. It does not mean that you'll win every hand, or even every hand where there's lots at stake. But it, by definition, will do better over time, in the long run than any other strategy.
This, to me, is merely a reason why everyone who is not interested in playing "optimally" should not be participating in "optimal play" discussions.Beer40 said:Everyone play the way you want. Arguing does not change other people's minds, believe it or not.
We can have an interesting debate/discussion about what the most optimal play stragegy is, and people who are interested in actually playing optimally may find that they were, in fact, wrong. We can't have an interesting discussion about "Screw off, I do what I want"3 -
I go back to my question (kinda) to Ducky, it was mostly rhetoric, but anyway, you are arguing semantics here. No one should care who I champ and who I don't champ to the point that I get criticism for it. I have 4 of the latest champed, with Medusa joining them soon (tomorrow). AC is fully covered @150, Mordo and Riri 12 covers 5/2/5@150, R4G 2/4/3@127, Hobo 4/2/5@111, C&D 1/1/2@94, and Gamora 0/1/3@74. But my next champ after Medusa is not going to be another latest- it is going to be Prof X. For two reasons, 1) I'll be getting a cover for him in pvp progression (more if I place high enough in cage pvp, but that's doubtful) 2) For this week's boost list I'm using Blade, Thor, and X in Iso8 Brotherhood- it's a fun team with a full rainbow but I need Prof X to tank more than just purple, if I champ him (I have him @215 so only need about 200K iso and I have 3 2*s almost ready to sell, prob gonna sacrifice the farm on that one....) he will tank blue and purple, making his tile buff that much easier to induce. There are more reasons someone my want to champ vaulted characters over the latest 12 than just I like this character/ don't like this one. Champing Prof X is actually going to make my roster better now.
Now, I also have quite a few other fully covered vaulted characters that I am going to be champing in the next few months. To eliminate my waste I have been hoarding through this process. There is no set one way that is optimal play, I want to champ vaulted characters so I hoard my LT and CP- TO ME THAT IS OPTIMAL PLAY, to someone else it may not be. But to each your own........
In an effort to stay on topic..... I've champed Thor, Kingpin, Nova, Quake, and technically Cage (I just missed the cut on him, I think the day after he went to the vault I champed him). But by the time I'm done it will also include Prof X, Jean, Antman, Elektra, IW, HB, Flaptain, Spider-woman, Starlord, Thing, Venom(Brock), X-23, Miles, Spider-Gwen, War Machine, Moon Knight, and Kate Bishop as, at the end of the day, I want them all champed regardless. Even a lesser character can be useful with the right team around them.
EDIT: HAHAHAHAHA, I messed up my pvp rewards, gonna get the Prof X cover FROM Cag3 pvp progression..... Oops!!! And I champed him already, sacrificed the top of my 2* farm for it and not regretting it one bit!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.6K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.2K MPQ General Discussion
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2K MPQ Character Discussion
- 171 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.3K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 6.2K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 13.5K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 498 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.3K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 98 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 419 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 295 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.6K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 381 Other Games
- 142 General Discussion
- 239 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements