DrDevilDinosaur said: Wumpushunter said:So how many of your old useless 4s have you sold to cover Eddie Brock and Mordo? Implying you need to sell 4*s to cover new ones.Come on champ, is this really the hill you want to die on? Power isn't limited to a small handful of legacy 4*s. Carol is arguably the strongest in the tier, Rocket&Groot can finish matches before I've had a chance to gather the AP for their active abilities, the newly reworked RiRi is a damage dealing monster.I've got a 0/1/0 Chulk, but if you offered me the choice between covers for him or Vulture, I'm going with the newer character.
Wumpushunter said:So how many of your old useless 4s have you sold to cover Eddie Brock and Mordo?
Wumpushunter said: DrDevilDinosaur said: Wumpushunter said:So how many of your old useless 4s have you sold to cover Eddie Brock and Mordo? Implying you need to sell 4*s to cover new ones.Come on champ, is this really the hill you want to die on? Power isn't limited to a small handful of legacy 4*s. Carol is arguably the strongest in the tier, Rocket&Groot can finish matches before I've had a chance to gather the AP for their active abilities, the newly reworked RiRi is a damage dealing monster.I've got a 0/1/0 Chulk, but if you offered me the choice between covers for him or Vulture, I'm going with the newer character. Yes this hill, governor. My meaning was no one is giving up all those "bad" fours to cover the new characters if they were really so awful ditch em. Save some roster space for star lord the pathetic and Mordo the maligned. So telling new people don't worry about them is a bit hypocritical.
But why would I sell them? Vaulting enabled me to get further ahead on ISO, HP, and roster slots than I had ever been before. The reason I only have a 1 cover Chulk is that I couldn't afford to keep him and whatever new character at some point before his rework. I did ditch him then. That one cover now came from a 3*Hulk champ reward while vaulting was in effect. I was able to drop the 2000 HP for him and Sandman in the same week and still have plenty of HP left over.
As far as I can remember, the only thing I lost from not having him rostered was the LT from his Crash of the Titans and 4 or 6 CP all up from his turns in Big Burrito. I don't recall that he was a required 4* during that time. Going forward, I won't be able to win Crash with him for a while, but a single cover is enough to use him in any PvE required nodes and in Big Burrito.
HP? Swimming in it.
ISO? Not as much as I'd like, but I can still take a 4* from lvl 70 to champ in about 14 days - I just need to be a little selective and a little patient with my Tokens/CP.
So why would I sell my old 4* characters?
I'm not saying "Don't worry about the older characters", I'm saying "Don't worry about the older characters at the expense of the new ones". With the exception of Sandman, any one of the current 12 at level 270 would be just as good for your progression as a level 270 Hulkbuster/Jean Grey/Iceman/etc. Arguably moreso, since you'll actually likely to earn champ levels and they are more likely to be featured.
I'm trying to work out what position you're arguing - you want veteran players to sell their Eddie Brock Venom so that they don't have to buy a slot for Mordo? Or at least you think it's hypocritical for them to give that advice to new players because the veterans don't do it themselves? Let's be honest - that's naïve at best and a false equivalence logical fallacy at worst. But, I've come this far, so let's play your little Kobayashi Maru.
Sell the Mordo cover.
If you're struggling to get the HP now, selling Venom to make room is only swapping one problem for another - and it'll be a much harder decision if you're forced to sell Venom again later. After you sell the Mordo cover, stop opening/buying Legendary Tokens until you have enough HP to roster a new character. Let this be a 1000 ISO lesson (much better than a 2500 ISO lesson from selling a 5*), and start working on getting your roster and resource gain to a point where you don't have to make this decision again.
babinro said: D4Ni13 said: The latest announcement about vintage heroes earned quite a reaction. Before this, most of the people were against vaulting. Now that the vaulting is gone, they're still not happy. I think this community (or part of it) is doomed to never be happy. Usually it's ok to be sceptical, but there is a limit. You can call it 'doomed to never be happy' but the fact is people jump to conclusions and aren't always right about said conclusions in the long term. That's not to say D3 always gets it right, they certainly don't...but the players don't always get it right either.
D4Ni13 said: The latest announcement about vintage heroes earned quite a reaction. Before this, most of the people were against vaulting. Now that the vaulting is gone, they're still not happy. I think this community (or part of it) is doomed to never be happy. Usually it's ok to be sceptical, but there is a limit.
Wumpushunter said: My position is all the vets are arguing for vaulting because they have all those old characters who in my opinion are head and shoulders above most of the new 12. When people were talking about taking down bosses in the sinster 6 it wasn't mordo or venom they were using it was still Iceman, Peggy, and others that were vaulted away. Im saying you cant really know the struggle of not having characters because you have them. Basically, if you got 10 or more champed old vaulted characters you cant have a fully informed opinion on vaulting because you arent really damaged by them locking characters away from you. All you get is benefit no detriment.
New McG said: Except they aren't, really at all. Characters like IMHB and Teen Jean were meta-defining, and are now easy pickings, as remnants of the "save for a big nuke, and wipe everyone out in one shot" meta game. Now? Against a faster team that exists now at the same level, they're downed before they can accumulate the AP for anything that might threaten the new big guns. When un-boosted, Iceman is now basically useful for his stun, because his green is expensive and his purple fuels his blue and powers his green. Peggy's still decently useful, but when she isn't boosted? Use the quick hitting new characters to get her under her AP-raising threshold, and she's lost a big chunk of her usefulness, often in a handful of turns. You go ahead and build up these old characters, which you consider "head and shoulders above the new characters" and those with the new 12 will use the likes of Carol, C&D, R&G, Gamora, Couson, Riri, Vulture, Mockingbird, and even maybe the reworked Mordo (aka 3/4 of the current 12 as of next month) to tear through your team of relics of the golden age of giant nukes. (It's almost like the newest 12 are actually really, really good.)
smkspy said: I freely admit that I was wrong about vaulting when it happened. I was definitely against it cause at the time I had zero of the 12 champed, all my champed 4s were vaulted, and most of the 12 only had a few covers. I was sitting on like 4 carol and 3 blade covers. Peggy and Wasp were my only highly coveredcharacters at around 9 each.Today I have a 299 carol and 299 medusa. Not only that but my resources has exploded not just from champ levels, but also from the 3 star vaulting that leveled up a great many 3s.I'm initially against this change right now, but I will give it time. It's nice to have access to vaulted 4s again, but I think they've gone about it wrong because dilution, the major reason they vaulted in the first place, is back and 3x a chance for a latest really isn't much.Like vaulting though, time will tell.Edit: And I get why some people hate BH. It's pure luck and some of us were really lucky and some were unlucky. And hoarding never affected BH, that luck % reset with every pull just like 5 star percentages.
sh81 said: Probably because people initially against it wouldnt have had time to adjust and understand its benefits.Vaulting was always a good thing.What was bad was not having access to older covers as well. Having that choice removed, having all that resource effectively locked and wasted, was the problem - not vaulting itself.Vaulting worked fantastically well, and was a huge benefit to the players.
sh81 said: Having been a victim of dillution, and a beneficiary of vaulting (and I wasnt a fan at all at first), I feel I have a valid opinion on the change. We have returned to dilution, I dont like that. And I feel the same issues that plagued me then will return now.
sh81 said: And half of my pulls are under the exact circumstance of the old system, which was dilution, which had so many issues the devs turned to vaulting.
sh81 said: Of course, we know thats never going to happen. So instead, while I was broadly keeping up with the release rate, I am now going to be forever behind. And Ill be wasting more and more pulls while pulling tokens for vaulted characters I cant use or dont want.
sh81 said: My preferred solution was a second vault. Another token, "Vintage" containing 12 vaulted characters. This would then rotate its contents periodically (Id be happy with weekly, but even if it was every season Id be fine).Vaulting proved that it works. It works REALLY well, so why not apply it to vintage tokens as well?
sh81 said: For the most part new characters are far superior to the old ones (as I said, maybe 5 of 40+ that actually interest me).
Starfury said: sh81 said: Of course, we know thats never going to happen. So instead, while I was broadly keeping up with the release rate, I am now going to be forever behind. And Ill be wasting more and more pulls while pulling tokens for vaulted characters I cant use or dont want. Oh come on!!!You weren't just keeping up, you were champing them far ahead of schedule. Your Sandman is at 11 covers and he's been in the latest 12 for 1 of 8 seasons., your Vulture's at 6 a week after he's entered tokens. You champed C4ge who was only in the latest 12 for two seasons. Look, if I wasn't convinced that 3.5% instead of 7% was easily enough to cover the latest 12, I'd be totally opposed to this move as well. But you're complaining about things that won't even happen. sh81 said: My preferred solution was a second vault. Another token, "Vintage" containing 12 vaulted characters. This would then rotate its contents periodically (Id be happy with weekly, but even if it was every season Id be fine).Vaulting proved that it works. It works REALLY well, so why not apply it to vintage tokens as well? Rotating vaults wouldn't change a thing. Vaulting didn't increase the speed of cover acquisition by dividing characters into pools of 12, it worked by removing almost 40 characters from tokens. The moment you open a second vault, you either don't pull from it, or you're splitting your progress between the latest 12 and the guys in the other vault. Or you just ignore it and we're back where we were with vaulting, where 75% of the 4* roster are essentially shelved.On top of it, you'd just get monthly threads complaining about why they "deliberately" put Rulk in a pool with Ghost Rider, Kingpin and Nick Fury and why they pulled twice as many Mr. Fantastic, Elektra and Failcaps as they got Iceman and Peggy.It's more work for the devs for the same overall effect as this change had.
Daredevil217 said: Starfury said: sh81 said: Of course, we know thats never going to happen. So instead, while I was broadly keeping up with the release rate, I am now going to be forever behind. And Ill be wasting more and more pulls while pulling tokens for vaulted characters I cant use or dont want. Oh come on!!!You weren't just keeping up, you were champing them far ahead of schedule. Your Sandman is at 11 covers and he's been in the latest 12 for 1 of 8 seasons., your Vulture's at 6 a week after he's entered tokens. You champed C4ge who was only in the latest 12 for two seasons. Look, if I wasn't convinced that 3.5% instead of 7% was easily enough to cover the latest 12, I'd be totally opposed to this move as well. But you're complaining about things that won't even happen. sh81 said: My preferred solution was a second vault. Another token, "Vintage" containing 12 vaulted characters. This would then rotate its contents periodically (Id be happy with weekly, but even if it was every season Id be fine).Vaulting proved that it works. It works REALLY well, so why not apply it to vintage tokens as well? Rotating vaults wouldn't change a thing. Vaulting didn't increase the speed of cover acquisition by dividing characters into pools of 12, it worked by removing almost 40 characters from tokens. The moment you open a second vault, you either don't pull from it, or you're splitting your progress between the latest 12 and the guys in the other vault. Or you just ignore it and we're back where we were with vaulting, where 75% of the 4* roster are essentially shelved.On top of it, you'd just get monthly threads complaining about why they "deliberately" put Rulk in a pool with Ghost Rider, Kingpin and Nick Fury and why they pulled twice as many Mr. Fantastic, Elektra and Failcaps as they got Iceman and Peggy.It's more work for the devs for the same overall effect as this change had. There's so much truth here. The fact that our cover acquisition rate is the same is probably the biggest point that he's missing. WE are not subjected to wasted pulls (well no more so than before). That's a huge misconception. If you have no use for a character and want to skip them, focusing only on the newer shinies than yeah, YOU will have covers you CHOOSE to waste. I have a Fury dying on the vine so will stop pulling until I champ him. I'm choosing not to have wasted pulls.The only way I will waste pulls is the dreaded 6th cover which has happened to me under every system (pre-vaulting, vaulting, and post-vaulting).