Vaulting and its fallout are still significant issues in the game. . .

1234568

Comments

  • NewMcG
    NewMcG Posts: 368 Mover and Shaker
    Starfury said:
    Fightmastermpq said:
    Vhailorx said:
    Didnt everyone who just said they prefer "vaulting + bh" over "no vaulting+bh" also argue that bh was a perfectly way of covering vaulted 4*s?  

    If so, then why is dilution a concern under the"no-vaulting+bh"?  You can just use bh to cover whoever you want?  

    It really seems like the people who like vaulting + bh are the one who dont care about vaulted 4*s, either because they dont need many more covers for older 4*s, or because they arent completionists, or because they like building newer 4*s faster.  That's all fine.  But why does it mean that I am wrong to care more about the vaulted characters?

    BH is great because it allows for meaningful progress on 1 or 2 characters in a reasonable amount of time to allow you to target a couple favorites or top tier characters to improve your roster to your liking.  But as a mechanism for making meaningful progress into the entirety of the 4* tier it falls short.  I never claimed that BH was a "perfectly way of covering [all] vaulted 4*s", it's not.

    Old tokens offering on average 1 cover in 40 pulls for every character => dilution, noone ever gets anywhere
    BH tokens offering on average 1 cover in 40 pulls for two bonus characters => meaningful progress.
    Sounds pretty terrible as long as you don't factor in any of the pulls themselves in that latter scenario, right?
  • Starfury
    Starfury Posts: 719 Critical Contributor
    New McG said:
    Starfury said:
    Fightmastermpq said:
    Vhailorx said:
    Didnt everyone who just said they prefer "vaulting + bh" over "no vaulting+bh" also argue that bh was a perfectly way of covering vaulted 4*s?  

    If so, then why is dilution a concern under the"no-vaulting+bh"?  You can just use bh to cover whoever you want?  

    It really seems like the people who like vaulting + bh are the one who dont care about vaulted 4*s, either because they dont need many more covers for older 4*s, or because they arent completionists, or because they like building newer 4*s faster.  That's all fine.  But why does it mean that I am wrong to care more about the vaulted characters?

    BH is great because it allows for meaningful progress on 1 or 2 characters in a reasonable amount of time to allow you to target a couple favorites or top tier characters to improve your roster to your liking.  But as a mechanism for making meaningful progress into the entirety of the 4* tier it falls short.  I never claimed that BH was a "perfectly way of covering [all] vaulted 4*s", it's not.

    Old tokens offering on average 1 cover in 40 pulls for every character => dilution, noone ever gets anywhere
    BH tokens offering on average 1 cover in 40 pulls for two bonus characters => meaningful progress.
    Sounds pretty terrible as long as you don't factor in any of the pulls themselves in that latter scenario, right?
    Those pulls won't yield one of the vaulted characters.

    Selecting two bonus heroes means you earn covers for those two characters at the same speed you had in the old system. If you call that "meaningful progress", it means you also made meaningful progress on the entirety of the 4* tier under the old system. Or if you didn't make meaningful progress under the old system, you won't make meaningful progress through bonus heroes.


  • animaniactoo
    animaniactoo Posts: 486 Mover and Shaker
    The issue that many who are pro-vaulting seem to be missing is that the vaulted characters continue to be used as PVE essential node and DDQ required characters, and weekly buffs.

    This creates a SERIOUS disadvantage for newer players who no longer have a reasonable (time frame!) route to building up those characters. As somebody who started 3->4 transition just as this came in... I am going to end up with a roster where SCL event scaling means that I should be in one SCL based on the bulk of my roster - where I can compete at... and absolutely CRUSHED on the 4*node with someone who is at 2/0/1, and won't get much better when I pull that cover from progression to go to 2/0/2.

    We've all been there, not having the newest 4* on new releases and needing to pick it up from progression. But now picture being in that situation 3/4 of the time, because that's how often you don't have a character well built enough. And at that, I'm forgetting that it's going to happen to people who are in 2->3 transition because I already have all my 3*s champed.

    What happens when weekly buffs are essentially meaningless to you because you only really have 1 or 2 of the buffed characters developed well enough for it to make a difference? And are getting crushed out of the essential nodes because you regularly don't have those characters well enough developed against the rest of your roster?

    If dilution is a problem, there has to be more of a solution than simply removing a large swathe of characters and giving slow roads to building them.

    Maybe DDQ changes to a 2* essential node gets you a 3* cover (including rotating the vaulted ones), and 3* essential node gets you a 4* cover. Dunno. It's one thought. As is the other cover store.

    But it is a major issue and not just player preference or gotta catch em all syndrome.
  • Wumpushunter
    Wumpushunter Posts: 627 Critical Contributor
    Can people please keep up with their bonus hero rate.  Right now my overall rate is less than 2.5% and it's worse on LT.  Don't just believe D3 that it's 1 in 20.
  • revskip
    revskip Posts: 1,038 Chairperson of the Boards
    Wumpushunter said:
    Can people please keep up with their bonus hero rate.  Right now my overall rate is less than 2.5% and it's worse on LT.  Don't just believe D3 that it's 1 in 20.
    I track mine.  It fluctuates between 4.8% and 5.2% at the 3* level, is currently at 4.8% for 4*s and a very maddening 3.2% for 5*s.  
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    There is definitely a disconnect between the pro and anti crowd here. I don't like vaulting myself, but I, also, don't like the old system. 

    The old system has its own set of issues, but the new system has its own set of unique issues. I, truly, do not believe vaulting 75+% of an entire tier is good for the game in the long run. 

    As far as McG's argument against multiple vaults and the "CS nightmare" from someone that accidentally pulled from the wrong vault, I would expect a form letter type response saying something to the effect of "I'm sorry but we cannot refund you for your mistakes". That would be an "easy" thing for them to draw up and fire off everytime someone made that mistake. Personal responsibility people!! We are adults here, after all!! 

    I like the idea of release year vaults, that's interesting. I, also, like my idea of a weekly boosted vault (that would eliminate that confusion McG). 

    Most of all, people like to have a choice in what they do in every aspect of their life, even in a meaningless mobile game. Give us choices on what/who we want to pull regularly. Bonus heroes helps but it is not game altering. I, myself, have pulled very, very few 4* BH and not a single 5* BH yet. I wouldn't even have a 4* character half covered at this point through BH!! 

    I would very much like to see some progress on older characters, especially when they are boosted for the week or featured for an event. Another reason why I think the weekly boosted vault is the best idea. This event I'm using Peggy, Kingpin, and AV. If all 3 were in the same vault and I could make my pve team stronger now while I'm using them I would. But, as it is, the only one i can reasonably hope to make stronger is AV. I don't like that!! 
  • Fightmastermpq
    Fightmastermpq Posts: 995 Critical Contributor
    edited June 2017
    Starfury said:
    Fightmastermpq said:
    Vhailorx said:
    Didnt everyone who just said they prefer "vaulting + bh" over "no vaulting+bh" also argue that bh was a perfectly way of covering vaulted 4*s?  

    If so, then why is dilution a concern under the"no-vaulting+bh"?  You can just use bh to cover whoever you want?  

    It really seems like the people who like vaulting + bh are the one who dont care about vaulted 4*s, either because they dont need many more covers for older 4*s, or because they arent completionists, or because they like building newer 4*s faster.  That's all fine.  But why does it mean that I am wrong to care more about the vaulted characters?

    BH is great because it allows for meaningful progress on 1 or 2 characters in a reasonable amount of time to allow you to target a couple favorites or top tier characters to improve your roster to your liking.  But as a mechanism for making meaningful progress into the entirety of the 4* tier it falls short.  I never claimed that BH was a "perfectly way of covering [all] vaulted 4*s", it's not.

    Old tokens offering on average 1 cover in 40 pulls for every character => dilution, noone ever gets anywhere
    BH tokens offering on average 1 cover in 40 pulls for two bonus characters => meaningful progress.
    I shouldn't have to even respond to this, but since apparently at least 3 numbskulls think you made some kind of valid point I feel obligated....

    It's 1/20, until you finish, then 1/20 on a second.  So on that first one you are obviously making meaningful progress much quicker than under the old system.  There are over 50 4*s now.  1/50 is significantly less than 1/20 and even 1/40.

    And you again have fallen prey to the trap of looking at the game as stagnant, it's not.  We get a new character every 3 weeks (on average).  So that 1/50 will be 1/65 in less than a year, but that 1/20 BH will be 1/20 forever.

    And don't forget about the remaining 49/50 tokens representing an average of 1 cover per 4* while the 20/20 (yeah, you get all 20 because the 1 was a bonus) is 1.6 covers/character, or just over 4 covers per character with the same 50 draws.  That's more meaningful progress.
  • Fightmastermpq
    Fightmastermpq Posts: 995 Critical Contributor
    Vhailorx said:
    Fight:

    (1) calling people who disagree with you numbskulls is probably part of of why people who disagree with you (like me) find your arguments so abrasive.  

    (2) FORGET ABOUT THE OLD SYSTEM!  It's moot now.  We are talking about the problems with vaulting and how to solve them, not how vaulting compares to the old status quo.

    (3) why are you willingto condescend to correct us numbskulls on this point, but completely silent as to my post last night about providing ewual access to all 4*s without dilution?
    (1) If you don't want people to think you are a numbskull then don't act like some asinine argument has any merit after 7 pages of mostly reasonable discussion.  I don't care if you find my arguments abrasive, by this point it's obvious that you have no intention of processing what I'm saying anyway.  My posts are for others that visit the forums who are more open to rational thinking.

    (2) He was talking about the old system, and I responded.  Why are you shouting?

    (3) "ewual access to all 4*s without dilution" is an oxymoron, and if you can't understand that then you still just don't understand dilution.  Your "solution" was just vaulting x 4.  Instead of forcing everyone into the newest 12 you give them a choice.  Sounds great on paper, but we've already gone over why this wouldn't work.  Take it to the extreme - let people choose exactly which 12 characters they want.....what happens?  You get a game flooded with Iceman, Peggy, Rulk.....and whatever the community agrees on as the best 12 characters.  The meta becomes stale.  New characters are released, but we go back to not caring.  Your solution does the same thing - the vast majority of players start drawing from the same pool and all others are forgotten, the meta is stale.  And you still have no path to make meaningful progress on ALL characters - you get the same 10-16 or however many you choose and none of the others.  So you solution doesn't even solve the problem as you have described it.

    And your response of "well, we'll just rotate them through" won't work either.  It will promote hoarding until the best 12 are all in the same pool and then everyone will pull.  Over time all characters are in all tokens......this is still dilution, just compartmentalized in smaller short term buckets.
  • NewMcG
    NewMcG Posts: 368 Mover and Shaker
    Milk Jugz said:
    I would expect a form letter type response saying something to the effect of "I'm sorry but we cannot refund you for your mistakes". That would be an "easy" thing for them to draw up and fire off everytime someone made that mistake. Personal responsibility people!! We are adults here, after all!! 
    What forum have you been reading that's full of people who would calmly own up to their mistakes? I'd love to check it out sometime. :)
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    DarthDeVo said:
    Fightmastermpq said:

    (3) "ewual access to all 4*s without dilution" is an oxymoron, and if you can't understand that then you still just don't understand dilution.  Your "solution" was just vaulting x 4.  Instead of forcing everyone into the newest 12 you give them a choice.  Sounds great on paper, but we've already gone over why this wouldn't work.  Take it to the extreme - let people choose exactly which 12 characters they want.....what happens?  You get a game flooded with Iceman, Peggy, Rulk.....and whatever the community agrees on as the best 12 characters.  The meta becomes stale.  New characters are released, but we go back to not caring.  Your solution does the same thing - the vast majority of players start drawing from the same pool and all others are forgotten, the meta is stale.  And you still have no path to make meaningful progress on ALL characters - you get the same 10-16 or however many you choose and none of the others.  So you solution doesn't even solve the problem as you have described it.

    And your response of "well, we'll just rotate them through" won't work either.  It will promote hoarding until the best 12 are all in the same pool and then everyone will pull.  Over time all characters are in all tokens......this is still dilution, just compartmentalized in smaller short term buckets.
    Maybe. Maybe not. Just speaking for myself, if we had a token situation set up like this, I would first focus on the token packs that would allow me to get my poorly covered characters to the point where they could at least complete their Crash. And I'm a completionist. My first long term goal was to roster all the 3*s. Then it was to champ them. Then it was to roster all the 4*s. Currently, it's getting at least one cover in each color for all of them; I've got a few left to go. Eventually it will be champing all 4*s, then getting one cover in each color for the 5*s, then maybe champing them, too. I doubt the game lasts that long, though.

    I think the general consensus I've seen is that people just want the choice of access. I mean, what would happen to you personally if they implemented a token situation like this? I imagine you'd probably still continue pulling from Latest/Classics or wherever you pull from now that allows you to speedily cover the Latest 12, while ignoring the dilution or these other tokens, right?

    So how would it hurt you, personally, if people could choose to pull from a token (or several tokens) that included vaulted characters, if that was their prerogative? Why is it so bad for people to have that choice if they want to allocate their resources in that manner? I would love to pull from a token or several tokens that include Spider-Gwen, Chulk, Star-Lord and Drax. Yes, Bonus Heroes help some in this regard, but it theoretically could go faster if I had some token options to pull from as well.

    Most of my vaulted characters aren't covered all that well. The chances of me pulling a useless cover from a token (or tokens) that included just vaulted characters would be pretty low right now. I have very, very, few vaulted characters at five covers in a given color. However, I understand that at some point the pulls would become less useful as my vaulted characters become better covered and more colors get to the five cover mark. The way I see it, if a particular token pack would get to the point where I'm seeing more and more wasted pulls, I would just switch to a different pack or back to Latest or Classics and use BH or CP to finish off the characters from that other pack. But that would be my choice.

    But apparently it's just the worst, most illogical, inefficient thing ever to even have that choice.

    On a side note, I'm having a hard time imagining how this could be seen as a negative from the dev point of view. It would seriously boost player morale and give players more avenues to potentially spend actual dollars. Everything is still RNG based. Then again, I'm not a designer/accountant, so there's probably some detriment to the bottom line I'm not seeing as the reason why they haven't pursued a solution similar to this so far. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, this solution or ones very similar to it were brought up literally within hours of vaulting being implemented, so there's got to be a reason why they haven't done anything beyond the Vintage Heroic Token and Heroes for Hire for the past almost four months.
    To your point and vhailorx point, a weekly boosted vault would offer those and, to contrast fights point in (3), the top tier characters are not all boosted in the same week so there won't be the uneven build of just the top tier. People just want that choice!!!!
  • Fightmastermpq
    Fightmastermpq Posts: 995 Critical Contributor
    Like it or not, the game is largely based on RNG, and excessive choice breaks that mold.  It creates a stale meta which is bad for all of us.

    From the dev perspective - they obviously value new characters as the vast majority of their effort in providing new content seems to be in the development of new characters.  This is why they chose to have the newest characters in tokens - they feel that helps to keep the game fresh and not just have the players always using the same Thorverine or JeanBuster teams ad nauseam.
  • NewMcG
    NewMcG Posts: 368 Mover and Shaker
    DarthDeVo said:

    On a side note, I'm having a hard time imagining how this could be seen as a negative from the dev point of view. It would seriously boost player morale and give players more avenues to potentially spend actual dollars. Everything is still RNG based. Then again, I'm not a designer/accountant, so there's probably some detriment to the bottom line I'm not seeing as the reason why they haven't pursued a solution similar to this so far. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, this solution or ones very similar to it were brought up literally within hours of vaulting being implemented, so there's got to be a reason why they haven't done anything beyond the Vintage Heroic Token and Heroes for Hire for the past almost four months.
    (Emphasis mine) See, you're confusing "general player morale" with "vocal forum member morale". Very different things.

    And my assumption for the second bolded portion is this: It hasn't been the detriment to the game, player spending, etc that portions of the forums would like to believe. Do you think if it had any significant impact on the bottom line of the game, they'd stubbornly stick to it to try and prove a point while the game goes into aa death spiral? (And here is where a certain forum portion will chime in with a cacophony along the lines of "yes, the devs are actively trying to sabotage their game with these terrible decisions!".)
  • Milk Jugz
    Milk Jugz Posts: 1,122 Chairperson of the Boards
    Fightmastermpq said:
    Like it or not, the game is largely based on RNG, and excessive choice breaks that mold.  It creates a stale meta which is bad for all of us.

    From the dev perspective - they obviously value new characters as the vast majority of their effort in providing new content seems to be in the development of new characters.  This is why they chose to have the newest characters in tokens - they feel that helps to keep the game fresh and not just have the players always using the same Thorverine or JeanBuster teams ad nauseam.
    Weekly boosted vault still RNG based.... If it has the 3* & 4* weekly boosted and featured characters for two weeks at a time they aren't just giving the covers away... 
  • Nepenthe
    Nepenthe Posts: 283 Mover and Shaker
    Fightmastermpq said:
    Starfury said:
    Fightmastermpq said:
    Vhailorx said:
    Didnt everyone who just said they prefer "vaulting + bh" over "no vaulting+bh" also argue that bh was a perfectly way of covering vaulted 4*s?  

    If so, then why is dilution a concern under the"no-vaulting+bh"?  You can just use bh to cover whoever you want?  

    It really seems like the people who like vaulting + bh are the one who dont care about vaulted 4*s, either because they dont need many more covers for older 4*s, or because they arent completionists, or because they like building newer 4*s faster.  That's all fine.  But why does it mean that I am wrong to care more about the vaulted characters?

    BH is great because it allows for meaningful progress on 1 or 2 characters in a reasonable amount of time to allow you to target a couple favorites or top tier characters to improve your roster to your liking.  But as a mechanism for making meaningful progress into the entirety of the 4* tier it falls short.  I never claimed that BH was a "perfectly way of covering [all] vaulted 4*s", it's not.

    Old tokens offering on average 1 cover in 40 pulls for every character => dilution, noone ever gets anywhere
    BH tokens offering on average 1 cover in 40 pulls for two bonus characters => meaningful progress.
    I shouldn't have to even respond to this, but since apparently at least 3 numbskulls think you made some kind of valid point I feel obligated....

    It's 1/20, until you finish, then 1/20 on a second.  So on that first one you are obviously making meaningful progress much quicker than under the old system.  There are over 50 4*s now.  1/50 is significantly less than 1/20 and even 1/40.

    And you again have fallen prey to the trap of looking at the game as stagnant, it's not.  We get a new character every 3 weeks (on average).  So that 1/50 will be 1/65 in less than a year, but that 1/20 BH will be 1/20 forever.

    And don't forget about the remaining 49/50 tokens representing an average of 1 cover per 4* while the 20/20 (yeah, you get all 20 because the 1 was a bonus) is 1.6 covers/character, or just over 4 covers per character with the same 50 draws.  That's more meaningful progress.
    That's some incredible cherry picking.  You're saying that if there's 2 or 3 older characters I'd like to cover, out of all of the vaulted ones, that getting 1/20 for the first one is meaningful progress... while you ignore the fact that you're then getting 0/20 for the second and third, etc.  If you want to cover A and B, it's the same rate of progress as a whole if you favorite one first and then the second, or if you favorite them both and unfavorite whichever hits max first.  (5% + 0% = 0% + 5% = 2.5% + 2.5%)

    There's easily more than 3 older characters that many people want to level.  And your point about new heroes being added has an effect on that pool of vaulted heroes too.  Each time a new one goes into tokens, one that was in tokens leaves and becomes vaulted - if it was a good one, that's one more that we have to rely on bonus heroes to level up.  

    I've seen your roster, and I get why you feel the way you do on this.  You've already got some 5*s champed already, so a 4* doesn't have very much value to you until it's 370 or relatively close to that, right?  (iirc, you've said as much in a different thread, but forgive me if I'm making incorrect assumptions.)  It makes perfect sense for you to want to speed level one good 4* character at a time to max champ, rather than spreading it out.  But for people who are just transitioning into 4* tier or are playing 4* as their primary, it actually kind of sucks to just get one hero much higher level than the rest of your roster.  It's just a different perspective and different priorities based on how you want to move your roster forward from its current point.  Neither is necessarily wrong, and neither player is stupid or a numbskull for disagreeing with the other.

    (And the standard disclaimer yet again: I agree that bonus heroes is a step in the right direction, that it solved the problem of new characters taking too long to cover, and I don't want to go back to the old system.  But I do want some other sort of legendary token option that has the older characters.  I'm not thrilled with the rotating old ones into the current 12 though, because it'd bump new ones out sooner and you'd have to hoard and wait until the old ones you like get rotated in.)
  • DarthDeVo
    DarthDeVo Posts: 2,178 Chairperson of the Boards
    New McG said:
    DarthDeVo said:

    On a side note, I'm having a hard time imagining how this could be seen as a negative from the dev point of view. It would seriously boost player morale and give players more avenues to potentially spend actual dollars. Everything is still RNG based. Then again, I'm not a designer/accountant, so there's probably some detriment to the bottom line I'm not seeing as the reason why they haven't pursued a solution similar to this so far. As was mentioned earlier in the thread, this solution or ones very similar to it were brought up literally within hours of vaulting being implemented, so there's got to be a reason why they haven't done anything beyond the Vintage Heroic Token and Heroes for Hire for the past almost four months.
    (Emphasis mine) See, you're confusing "general player morale" with "vocal forum member morale". Very different things.

    And my assumption for the second bolded portion is this: It hasn't been the detriment to the game, player spending, etc that portions of the forums would like to believe. Do you think if it had any significant impact on the bottom line of the game, they'd stubbornly stick to it to try and prove a point while the game goes into aa death spiral? (And here is where a certain forum portion will chime in with a cacophony along the lines of "yes, the devs are actively trying to sabotage their game with these terrible decisions!".)
    Well, I'm just starting to dig into the thread about the change to the Heroes for Hire store, but my initial hot take on it is that the change is about the dumbest decision I've seen made for this game in a long time that does precious little to help players out. For the life of me, I can't conceive of who thought it was a good idea, who agreed with them in order to get it implemented, or which players this possibly helps. This change means it will take more than two years to fully cycle through each cover color for each 4* character, and that tier is only growing.

    Maybe it's just one piece of another major change coming down the pike that will ultimately make it easier to obtain 4* characters, but in isolation this just seems to be a terrible, terrible decision. So while I don't necessarily agree that they're actively trying to sabotage their own game, someone would just need to point to this to make a pretty convincing argument.
  • Fightmastermpq
    Fightmastermpq Posts: 995 Critical Contributor
    Nepenthe said:
    Fightmastermpq said:
    Starfury said:
    Fightmastermpq said:
    Vhailorx said:
    Didnt everyone who just said they prefer "vaulting + bh" over "no vaulting+bh" also argue that bh was a perfectly way of covering vaulted 4*s?  

    If so, then why is dilution a concern under the"no-vaulting+bh"?  You can just use bh to cover whoever you want?  

    It really seems like the people who like vaulting + bh are the one who dont care about vaulted 4*s, either because they dont need many more covers for older 4*s, or because they arent completionists, or because they like building newer 4*s faster.  That's all fine.  But why does it mean that I am wrong to care more about the vaulted characters?

    BH is great because it allows for meaningful progress on 1 or 2 characters in a reasonable amount of time to allow you to target a couple favorites or top tier characters to improve your roster to your liking.  But as a mechanism for making meaningful progress into the entirety of the 4* tier it falls short.  I never claimed that BH was a "perfectly way of covering [all] vaulted 4*s", it's not.

    Old tokens offering on average 1 cover in 40 pulls for every character => dilution, noone ever gets anywhere
    BH tokens offering on average 1 cover in 40 pulls for two bonus characters => meaningful progress.
    I shouldn't have to even respond to this, but since apparently at least 3 numbskulls think you made some kind of valid point I feel obligated....

    It's 1/20, until you finish, then 1/20 on a second.  So on that first one you are obviously making meaningful progress much quicker than under the old system.  There are over 50 4*s now.  1/50 is significantly less than 1/20 and even 1/40.

    And you again have fallen prey to the trap of looking at the game as stagnant, it's not.  We get a new character every 3 weeks (on average).  So that 1/50 will be 1/65 in less than a year, but that 1/20 BH will be 1/20 forever.

    And don't forget about the remaining 49/50 tokens representing an average of 1 cover per 4* while the 20/20 (yeah, you get all 20 because the 1 was a bonus) is 1.6 covers/character, or just over 4 covers per character with the same 50 draws.  That's more meaningful progress.
    That's some incredible cherry picking.  You're saying that if there's 2 or 3 older characters I'd like to cover, out of all of the vaulted ones, that getting 1/20 for the first one is meaningful progress... while you ignore the fact that you're then getting 0/20 for the second and third, etc.  If you want to cover A and B, it's the same rate of progress as a whole if you favorite one first and then the second, or if you favorite them both and unfavorite whichever hits max first.  (5% + 0% = 0% + 5% = 2.5% + 2.5%)

    There's easily more than 3 older characters that many people want to level.  And your point about new heroes being added has an effect on that pool of vaulted heroes too.  Each time a new one goes into tokens, one that was in tokens leaves and becomes vaulted - if it was a good one, that's one more that we have to rely on bonus heroes to level up.  

    I've seen your roster, and I get why you feel the way you do on this.  You've already got some 5*s champed already, so a 4* doesn't have very much value to you until it's 370 or relatively close to that, right?  (iirc, you've said as much in a different thread, but forgive me if I'm making incorrect assumptions.)  It makes perfect sense for you to want to speed level one good 4* character at a time to max champ, rather than spreading it out.  But for people who are just transitioning into 4* tier or are playing 4* as their primary, it actually kind of sucks to just get one hero much higher level than the rest of your roster.  It's just a different perspective and different priorities based on how you want to move your roster forward from its current point.  Neither is necessarily wrong, and neither player is stupid or a numbskull for disagreeing with the other.

    (And the standard disclaimer yet again: I agree that bonus heroes is a step in the right direction, that it solved the problem of new characters taking too long to cover, and I don't want to go back to the old system.  But I do want some other sort of legendary token option that has the older characters.  I'm not thrilled with the rotating old ones into the current 12 though, because it'd bump new ones out sooner and you'd have to hoard and wait until the old ones you like get rotated in.)
    With Vaulting meaningful progress is made on all 12 of the newest 4*s, and with BH you can make meaningful progress on 1 additional 4* at a time.  There is really no good reason to have more than 1 BH in this regard, and the only reason I said "1 or 2" earlier is because once you champ your 2nd vaulted 4* progress for the 3rd is now slower than it would have been under the old system (1/60 < 1/50).  Also, for the record I was one of the first to speak negatively on BH as this rate is too low.

    No.  New characters being added doesn't affect BH because it allows you to target specific characters, and any serious transitioner is pulling enough covers to champ new characters before they are vaulted.  Sure there are a lot of good characters that are vaulted, but there are a lot of great characters in tokens too.  From a purely competitive standpoint you really don't need more than 1 or 2 of the vaulted characters to see success anyway.

    Forget about my roster.  You'll notice that I've never mentioned the fact that most of people in these threads will actually move on to the 5* tier before any of these long term discussions even matter for them because it's completely irrelevant to the discussion - we are talking about how best to make progress within the 4* tier and what my roster looks like has nothing to do with it.  Even though I have 5*s doesn't mean I'm not still active in the 4* tier.  I still use them every event - both PvE and PvP.

    And I don't think you are a numbskull because you disagreed with me, but because you seem to think that taking something I said out of context, using misleading numbers, and ignoring half the discussion to post some lame "gotcha" adds value to the discussion.  Disagree all you want, but let's disagree on the realities of what we are discussing so that we can at least have a meaningful discourse. 

Categories