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).
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.
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?
broll said: After some time to think my knee jerk reaction has settled down. Ultimately this change is better for most people and I'm not going to rally against it like I did with vaulting. There's really only one group it hits pretty hard and that's people deep in 4* transition with a lot of 5 covered non-champed 4*s and even then it's still better than the pre-vaulting solution.The only change I'd like to see them make is to change Latest to the vaulted solution and leave Vintage as is now. I don't think it will happen, but I think that would be a really good compromise of both systems and let people chose which system they want to live with.Edit: I flew off the handle largely because I had a good plan setup and that needs to be retooled again. I don't do well with last second changes to plans especially with little to no warning. Getting some notice so hoards like me could cash out in the old system if we chose to would have been nice. Not sure why they wouldn't want to do this as it also might have prompted purchases for people desperate to finish off a few of the last 12 before the change.
sh81 said: Too bad indeed, I feel like I would be quite happy if you added me to it.In what way was vaulting BAD for you, exactly?Did it stop you competing? Did it stall your development? Did it ruin your roster?Of course I can only speak for my own experience, but there are some universal truths to it.Vaulting most certainly enabled people to get 4s not only useable, or covered, but champed. In a meaningful way, this is a positive.Thats a fact.It also restricted access to older characters, which many are not happy about, so a negative effect. Another fact. They can both exist together, its not an either/or situation.What I was finding, from my own experience, was that older covers were actually accessible. Not as accessible as I would have liked, but also, certainly, not locked away and out of reach.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.You are welcome to disagree. Just as you are welcome to choose not to respond, considering you are unable to ignore me
Alsmir said: I'm no longer worried that if character X leaves tokens, I will have great difficulty covering them.
Daredevil217 said: My goal is to champ everyone. I have enough really good 4* that I don't really NEED anyone. I really WANT Vulture (he's my sole bonus) and Iceman (but mourned that loss awhile ago since he's a 2/5/2 build). So even though it's a 1% draw for any ONE specific vintage, I don't think most people wanting old characters want only one. This was the same logic fallacy that people had with Bonus Heroes (you can get older characters faster!! ... if you only want one).For me, the only way a pull won't be useful is the dreaded 6th cover (such as a 6th Blue for Bobby). I can live with those occasional losses as it's better than not having access to over 75% of the characters. Since I plan to champ em all, aside from "6th cover syndrome" my pulls will either be a champ level, a useable cover, or a 14th cover (at which point I stop pulling until that person is champed).This isn't an either/or strategy. It's both/and. Those who wanted access to older characters get it. Those who wanted newer characters at an accelerated rate get it too.All the people crying about vaulting ending are the same ones who cried when it was implemented thinking they know better than the developers. To those people I say why not let it ride out? The developers already proved that they knew better than you once, why not give it a chance before grabbing your pitchforks?
Beer40 said: In fairness, if they knew better than us wouldn't they have just left Vaulting as is?
Jaedenkaal said: Beer40 said: In fairness, if they knew better than us wouldn't they have just left Vaulting as is? Knowing better than the players and being able to improve on previous decisions are not mutually exclusive. D3/Demiurge is already in the unenviable position of being statistically completely unable to make major changes/upgrades that 100% of their player-base will "like"; why would we also shackle them to an unreasonable expectation of infallibility?
Beer40 said: By only taking a portion of my quote you invalidate what I was saying. The person I quoted gave them an apparent expectation of infallibility (your words) and I essentially said the same thing you are saying "they need to be able to improve on previous decisions". I believe a lot of the push behind improving things is based off player feedback. The game will seemingly always make money (Marvel property, free to start/play). They're trying to figure out how to make MORE money. How do you do that? Brainstorm and try to incorporate ideas customers like into that system. Not our actual ideas, because those mainly favor players only, but bits of them.
All the people crying about vaulting ending are the same ones who cried when it was implemented thinking they know better than the developers. To those people I say why not let it ride out? The developers already proved that they knew better than you once, why not give it a chance before grabbing your pitchforks?
Daredevil217 said:All the people crying about vaulting ending are the same ones who cried when it was implemented thinking they know better than the developers. To those people I say why not let it ride out? The developers already proved that they knew better than you once, why not give it a chance before grabbing your pitchforks?
Jaedenkaal said: Beer40 said: By only taking a portion of my quote you invalidate what I was saying. The person I quoted gave them an apparent expectation of infallibility (your words) and I essentially said the same thing you are saying "they need to be able to improve on previous decisions". I believe a lot of the push behind improving things is based off player feedback. The game will seemingly always make money (Marvel property, free to start/play). They're trying to figure out how to make MORE money. How do you do that? Brainstorm and try to incorporate ideas customers like into that system. Not our actual ideas, because those mainly favor players only, but bits of them. This quote, I presume you mean: All the people crying about vaulting ending are the same ones who cried when it was implemented thinking they know better than the developers. To those people I say why not let it ride out? The developers already proved that they knew better than you once, why not give it a chance before grabbing your pitchforks? There's no expectation of infallibility here that I see; merely a (possibly hyperbolic) observation that what the forum is really complaining about is change (of any kind) that appears to inconvenience them personally in any way. And that more likely what's happening is that D3 is making changes for the long term health of the game, as they see it (which may or may not be changes to previous changes that they have made). Yes, you might not agree with them personally right now. Yes, you can absolutely give feedback about those changes. Should Demiurge feel any pressure at all to "cave" to the protests about a change made only days ago? Absolutely not.
Beer40 said: Fwiw, I love this change, and I was against Vaulting. So maybe I took issue with the comment about people taking both sides of the argument,I dunno. And anyway, I agree that "caving" to the protests will not and should not happen. But the feedback (good and bad, because you can't magically make everyone submit good feedback) is definitely necessary, so that they can continue to make choices for the good long term health of the game.Think of it this way: What if they made a change to the game that ensured they would profit well financially and keep the game running for 10 years guaranteed. No bugs, more events, new stories, etc... and everyone universally hated it? Even for some stupid reason we all hated it. All of us. That's what feedback is for, to help you see what you just can't see on your own. Cave to it? No. Encourage it? Definitely (and the bad comes with that, unfortunately lol
Jaedenkaal said: Beer40 said: Fwiw, I love this change, and I was against Vaulting. So maybe I took issue with the comment about people taking both sides of the argument,I dunno. And anyway, I agree that "caving" to the protests will not and should not happen. But the feedback (good and bad, because you can't magically make everyone submit good feedback) is definitely necessary, so that they can continue to make choices for the good long term health of the game.Think of it this way: What if they made a change to the game that ensured they would profit well financially and keep the game running for 10 years guaranteed. No bugs, more events, new stories, etc... and everyone universally hated it? Even for some stupid reason we all hated it. All of us. That's what feedback is for, to help you see what you just can't see on your own. Cave to it? No. Encourage it? Definitely (and the bad comes with that, unfortunately lol Absolutely. I'm not subscribing to the argument that "everyone hated vaulting, and now suddenly everyone loved vaulting" argument, although it is very interesting to me that the supporters of vaulting were, seemingly, few and far between at the time, and we couldn't convince anyone that vaulting might be even a little bit good for them, and now suddenly there's this huge outcry, using all the arguments for vaulting that myself and others have been using all along.I personally think it seems on face value to be an excellent compromise (and it was always going to be a compromise; no solution was going to please everyone). Is it another change to they way I approach the game? Yep. Smaller than vaulting, certainly. Am I going to boycott opening tokens until they make a change? No, that would be counter-productive. I need to actually use the system so I can have an informed opinion.Anyways, it sounds like we are in agreement. It is our right to provide feedback to the developers about how we feel about the game (the more thoughtful and informed the better, of course). It is Demiurge's responsibility to take that feedback into consideration as they make improvements to the game.
New McG said: Alsmir said: I'm no longer worried that if character X leaves tokens, I will have great difficulty covering them. Once a character leaves tokens, their % is just above 1% right now. In two months or so, it will drop below 1%. With good luck, you'll need somewhere around 1,000 4* pulls to cover a non-latest 4* from scratch. If you were worried about not covering someone from the latest 12 in an 8 month window, then I'm not sure what to say to you about a process that will take thousands of pulls.
Alsmir said: New McG said: Alsmir said: I'm no longer worried that if character X leaves tokens, I will have great difficulty covering them. Once a character leaves tokens, their % is just above 1% right now. In two months or so, it will drop below 1%. With good luck, you'll need somewhere around 1,000 4* pulls to cover a non-latest 4* from scratch. If you were worried about not covering someone from the latest 12 in an 8 month window, then I'm not sure what to say to you about a process that will take thousands of pulls. Except I'm not covering anyone from scratch. Most of them are sitting at 3-7 covers, thanks to all the pulls from pre-vaulting,
Jaedenkaal said: Beer40 said: Fwiw, I love this change, and I was against Vaulting. So maybe I took issue with the comment about people taking both sides of the argument,I dunno. And anyway, I agree that "caving" to the protests will not and should not happen. But the feedback (good and bad, because you can't magically make everyone submit good feedback) is definitely necessary, so that they can continue to make choices for the good long term health of the game.Think of it this way: What if they made a change to the game that ensured they would profit well financially and keep the game running for 10 years guaranteed. No bugs, more events, new stories, etc... and everyone universally hated it? Even for some stupid reason we all hated it. All of us. That's what feedback is for, to help you see what you just can't see on your own. Cave to it? No. Encourage it? Definitely (and the bad comes with that, unfortunately lol Absolutely. I'm not subscribing to the argument that "everyone hated vaulting, and now suddenly everyone loved vaulting" argument, although it is very interesting to me that the supporters of vaulting were, seemingly, few and far between at the time, and we couldn't convince anyone that vaulting might be even a little bit good for them, and now suddenly there's this huge outcry, using all the arguments for vaulting that myself and others have been using all along.