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

12345679»

Comments

  • Nepenthe
    Nepenthe Posts: 283 Mover and Shaker
    @Vhailorx, FWIW, Fight has said in other threads that he's fine with them adding something like a Vintage Legendary token, as long as the Latest and Classic stay how they are now. He just seems to argue against any suggestion that the older way was in any sense better than vaulting/BH (even when people aren't asking to go back to the older way, just pointing out the new, different downside vaulting created). 

    When I'd first suggested the "older heroes in classics" idea I think he was one of the first ones to object to that idea because they didn't want to have 4* dilution in the only token that lets you get classic 5*s.  It makes sense, so most of us started asking for a third token type again.  You know, accommodating the viewpoint of someone who has different priorities in leveling their rosters. It's a thing. 
  • acescracked
    acescracked Posts: 1,197 Chairperson of the Boards
    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.  
    Geez, "numbskull" is playful banter if anyone on this forum had thicker than tissue paper skin.

    At least have some fun with this completely useless debate. D3 is gonna keep d3ing no matter what you guys say.
  • Vhailorx
    Vhailorx Posts: 6,085 Chairperson of the Boards
    Nepenthe said:
    @Vhailorx, FWIW, Fight has said in other threads that he's fine with them adding something like a Vintage Legendary token, as long as the Latest and Classic stay how they are now. He just seems to argue against any suggestion that the older way was in any sense better than vaulting/BH (even when people aren't asking to go back to the older way, just pointing out the new, different downside vaulting created). 

    When I'd first suggested the "older heroes in classics" idea I think he was one of the first ones to object to that idea because they didn't want to have 4* dilution in the only token that lets you get classic 5*s.  It makes sense, so most of us started asking for a third token type again.  You know, accommodating the viewpoint of someone who has different priorities in leveling their rosters. It's a thing. 
    Actually, the sort of ineffeciency created by forcing players to pick between chasing classic 5*s or avoiding dilution is exactly the sort of thing that fight has supported in this thread:  i think the quotation was:

    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.
    So it's odd that fight would oppose something that would prevent excessive choice.  Unless maybe it is something that might directly, and negatively, affect a choice that matters to fight's roster?  But that's hardly a charitble speculation. . .

    (To be fair, it is true that demi will reject any change that will make rostet progress too efficient because it would kill the endgame, and they are probably right to do so. But there is a pretty big gap between too much efficiency and zero roster progress at all, so i think there is a lot of room to build something that works for all sides.)
  • Fightmastermpq
    Fightmastermpq Posts: 995 Critical Contributor
    Vhailorx said:
    Fight said:
    . . .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

    I agree competely.  I just think that your statement describes what you are doing to me and not the other way around!  That probably says something about both of our rhetorical "skills."  :smile:

    My bottom line with you is that i struggle to understand why you are so resistant to a store that would let players spend their cp on vaulted characters in some way that is less efficient (in terms of roster progression) than the current 12 in latest and classic LTs, but more efficient than the currently slow process for vaulted 4*s.

    The only explanation that ever makes sense to me is that you have added 30+ covers to some of your vaulted 4*s since vaulting went live, so the vaulting issue must not seem that significant to you, and you love covering the current 12 fast with little waste.  But that would be a very bad justification for your position.  It's like a very rich person not caring about potholes because they have a private helicopter.  The potholes are still a problem!


    Weren't you **** about strawmen earlier?  Stop putting words in my mouth.  I don't want to create a system that leads to a stale meta where everyone is running Iceman and Peggy or some very limited subset of characters - in case you haven't noticed this behavior is kind of killing the 5* game right now....  

    They could make 100 different tokens for 100 different roster strategies, but to what end?  From their perspective it just gets us closer to a place where everyone ends up with more or less the same roster.  They threw us a bone with BH so we could get a little bit of what we wanted, but I think they fear allowing for more choice would result in less spending - bad for the bottom line, and consequently the player base as well.

    If you want to make a vintage LT with all the vaulted 4s then so be it - let them eat cake.  But as you start to add on token after token allowing for more and more custom choices I think a couple key game mechanics start to fall apart.  It's not about what I like, or what is best for me......it's about what I feel is best for the game.  ****, of course I'd like to hand pick my token possibilities, or whatever other gift you can dream up, but that's not what would be best for the game in the long run.
  • MissChinch
    MissChinch Posts: 509 Critical Contributor
    huh?  we're not really selling the idea that vaulting promotes diversity, right?  things havent gotten that bad in this thread have they?

    Its all a moot point, no ones piloting this ship any longer...   trying to discern what was going on in the designers thought process now would be like trying to determine what deeper message my 5 year old son was trying to convey with his latest coloring page...
  • JHawkInc
    JHawkInc Posts: 2,605 Chairperson of the Boards
    MissChinch said:
    huh?  we're not really selling the idea that vaulting promotes diversity, right?  things havent gotten that bad in this thread have they?
    Might want to update your sarcasm sensors.

    Fightmastermpq said he didn't want a system that lead to a stale meta with only people like Iceman/Peggy or the like, and Vhailorx was being snarky in how he pointed out that we already have that problem with Peggy/Carol/Medusa/Carnage. The line "Diversity is awesome; thanks vaulting!" was 100% sarcasm.

Categories