Is MPQ is a little top heavy? Could it be time for more 2* Characters?

Jesus Jones

I was just updating my roster in my signature and I noticed just how, IMO, unbalanced the character levels are.

20 x 5*
---------
58 x 4*
---------
46 x 3*
---------
14 x 2*
---------
8x 1*

Granted the stay in 1* land isn't long, so 8 covers are fine I guess but the jump in available characters from 2* land to 3* land is HUGE.  For the sake of farming and overall fun for newcomers, doesn't having only 14 2* characters seem a bit odd when there are 46 (and counting) 3* characters and 58 (and counting) 4* characters?

I wouldn't mind seeing D3 take the same strategy that they are doing with the 5*/3* dupes such as Gambit and make some 2* variants of 4* characters where there are only one offs like Nova, Ant-Man and Ice-Man just to name a few.

I think continuing to grow the game at the base would be a good strategy for D3 to look into. 

Thoughts?

carrion_pigeons

I don't think it would really have a positive impact. Increasing the size of the 2* tier would increase the length of the 2* transition, and more significantly increase the number of roster slots new players need to get.  Roster slots are already one of the bigger turnoffs for new players, and making that problem worse would not make new customer retention easier.

On the other hand, they could draw a distinction between costs for roster slots between tiers (i.e. 1* slots are free, a 2* slot costs 100 HP, a 3* slot costs 500 HP, 4*s are 1000 HP, 5*s cost 2000 HP to roster).  I think it would be a largely unpopular decision among established players, but it would allow them to make more low tier characters without overburdening new players. 

hopper1979

More 2's would be great, more farming characters more iso and rewards after the initial investment.  

Jaedenkaal

Mmm. I'm not sure one extra 2* would impact the 2* transition because of roster slots. Technically adding a new 3* also does this, in that it just adds one more slot before you can roster all the 3*s.

Oh you mean 1*-2* transition? Yes, that would be the issue. The real impact would be the dilution in 2* covers received when you still need them to advance.

The other issue for the developer is the return on investment. 2* characters just don't impact the game that much. Anyone already playing with mostly 3*s just doesn't really care about another 2*. And for those currently in the 2* game, you're already on your way out; 2* play just doesn't last that long.

Sure, it's another character to farm, but unless the rate of 2* cover acquisition is also increased, your overall farming 'speed' doesn't change, or if anything, goes down slightly.

Jesus Jones

Roster slots will always be an issue for the cost of them, I was thinking more in line with Hopper, the 2's feeding into the 3's and helping that transition along.  I don't see how 14 2's could realistically feed into the growing number of 3's.  The 3's can feed the 4's because there is some balance there with the rate of introduction of each class. 

But I guess if that is the point of capping the number of 2's to usher players along into 3's then I suppose it's working.

Dormammu

Jaedenkaal said:

The real impact would be the dilution in 2* covers received when you still need them to advance.

This is the biggest reason to go against it. Adding more 2-stars means they are that much harder to fully cover because of dilution. This is already a major, major problem for the higher tiers. 

Vold

carrion pigeons said:

On the other hand, they could draw a distinction between costs for roster slots between tiers (i.e. 1* slots are free, a 2* slot costs 100 HP, a 3* slot costs 500 HP, 4*s are 1000 HP, 5*s cost 2000 HP to roster).  I think it would be a largely unpopular decision among established players, but it would allow them to make more low tier characters without overburdening new players. 

I'm not too fond of that idea.

I've been mentioning how great this game is to be able to collect so much and not rely on real $

in 210 days, ive managed to get 75/145 characters.
not because I'm losing lots by not having roster slots but the rare ones are coming very slow that I was able to fill up the lower tiers.

This is already tough enough to get 900HP per slot.
if we make it fixed from the start how much per tier costs, it'll make it that much harder should u happen to have lots of new high tier like Gambit or Rogue when they're released but u just don't have enough HP to unlock a 3* or 4* slot.

right now the way it is, a new comer can get high tier with just 100 HP in their early stage of the game.
which can encourage them to play on.

now imagine seeing all the new ones or old high tier covers ur getting but not enough HPs to even bother. That'll piss em off and claim the game is forcing them to buy HP rather then earn them to unlock characters.

i can't even imagine people getting 2,000 in the early stages. It'll take me 2x weeks, which some covers will expire already, maybe even rare ones u've been waiting for in a long time.

 I can get 900HP almost every week. Thx to the new earn per number of wins. Without it, it'll be slower now that it costs 900.
i hope that feature continues.

one thing I'm disappointed is, how the HP needed can increase suddenly. At first I needed 700. When I just got enough, it pushed to 750...
can't it wait till I buy it first then increase?

Jesus Jones

Dormammu said:

Jaedenkaal said:

The real impact would be the dilution in 2* covers received when you still need them to advance.

This is the biggest reason to go against it. Adding more 2-stars means they are that much harder to fully cover because of dilution. This is already a major, major problem for the higher tiers. 

You could add 2* characters to the bonus draws to handle that issue.

vinsensual

The 2* fights deadpool fights are already the most boring for me.  Nor do I want to see more 2*s in tokens and definitely not polluting the bonus hero rates.  Not knowing how fast/slow it is anymore, I'd say just make the 2-3* transition faster, that's where the game opens up.   

Jaedenkaal

Jesus Jones said:

Dormammu said:

Jaedenkaal said:

The real impact would be the dilution in 2* covers received when you still need them to advance.

This is the biggest reason to go against it. Adding more 2-stars means they are that much harder to fully cover because of dilution. This is already a major, major problem for the higher tiers. 

You could add 2* characters to the bonus draws to handle that issue.

I'm not ready to get fewer bonus 3*s just to get an extra 2* character and 2* bonus heroes.

Jesus Jones

Bonus draws for character levels are independent of each other.

Jaedenkaal

Incorrect. There is a 5% chance per token of getting a bonus hero of some kind, weighted based on the odds of drawing the various BH-eligible covers in that token. In the simplest example, right now, 5% of elite token draws are 3* bonus heroes. If you add 2* BH into that mix as well, then only 25% of those 5% bonus hero draws would be 3*s; the other 75% would be 2*s. No thanks.

Jesus Jones

What I meant was that your draw for a 2* would come from a 2* pull, not from a 3* and so on....

TPF Alexis

Jesus Jones said:

What I meant was that your draw for a 2* would come from a 2* pull, not from a 3* and so on....

That's not how it works, tho. It's 5% per Token, not 5% per 3* or higher drawn. In Elite Tokens, that works out to an average of 20% of your 3* pulls coming with a Bonus Hero, with the total brought back down to 5% by the 0% chance of a Bonus Hero on the 2* pulls.

To illustrate: as it stands, a theoretical pull of 80 Elite Tokens would give 4 Bonus Heroes (5% of 80) for a total of 60 2* covers and 24 3*, including the 4 Bonus Heroes in the 3*. If 2* were also eligible for Bonus Heroes, those 80 Elites would theoretically yield the same 4 Bonus Heroes, but they would be split with 3 of them going to 2* and only 1 coming out as a 3*, for a total of 63 2* and 21 3*, for the same 5% per Token odds.

Straycat

I don't think thats how it works either. If 2*s were eligible for bonus heroes, the 5% odds would go up. Its 5% per token because most of the time heroic tokens give you 2*s. If those 2*s also had a 17% chance of bonus, then the overall bonus chance would be 17%, not 5%. At least thats my understanding of it.

Let's take the Heroic Pack. You have a ~71% chance to get a 2-Star, a ~23% chance to get a 3-Star and a ~6% chance to get a 4-Star. When you open a pack, you have an overall 5% chance to get a Bonus Hero. The way we get to that math is to set the chance to get a Bonus Hero per rarity that you draw. When you draw a 3-Star or 4-Star, you have roughly a 17% chance to get a Bonus Hero. When you multiply the chance to get a cover of that rarity with the chance to get a Bonus Hero, you get the [percent] chance to get a Bonus Hero from any one pull from a Heroic pack (~4% for 3-Stars and ~1% for 4-Stars).

Quebbster

TPF Alexis said:

Jesus Jones said:

What I meant was that your draw for a 2* would come from a 2* pull, not from a 3* and so on....

That's not how it works, tho. It's 5% per Token, not 5% per 3* or higher drawn. In Elite Tokens, that works out to an average of 20% of your 3* pulls coming with a Bonus Hero, with the total brought back down to 5% by the 0% chance of a Bonus Hero on the 2* pulls.

To illustrate: as it stands, a theoretical pull of 80 Elite Tokens would give 4 Bonus Heroes (5% of 80) for a total of 60 2* covers and 24 3*, including the 4 Bonus Heroes in the 3*. If 2* were also eligible for Bonus Heroes, those 80 Elites would theoretically yield the same 4 Bonus Heroes, but they would be split with 3 of them going to 2* and only 1 coming out as a 3*, for a total of 63 2* and 21 3*, for the same 5% per Token odds.

This is correct. It's why you Always get a bonus hero when you pull a gold cover from a Standard token - since most Standard pulls are ineglible for bonus heroes you get a bonus every time you pull something you can actually get a bonus on.

Jaedenkaal

Straycat said:

I don't think thats how it works either. If 2*s were eligible for bonus heroes, the 5% odds would go up. Its 5% per token because most of the time heroic tokens give you 2*s. If those 2*s also had a 17% chance of bonus, then the overall bonus chance would be 17%, not 5%. At least thats my understanding of it.

Let's take the Heroic Pack. You have a ~71% chance to get a 2-Star, a ~23% chance to get a 3-Star and a ~6% chance to get a 4-Star. When you open a pack, you have an overall 5% chance to get a Bonus Hero. The way we get to that math is to set the chance to get a Bonus Hero per rarity that you draw. When you draw a 3-Star or 4-Star, you have roughly a 17% chance to get a Bonus Hero. When you multiply the chance to get a cover of that rarity with the chance to get a Bonus Hero, you get the [percent] chance to get a Bonus Hero from any one pull from a Heroic pack (~4% for 3-Stars and ~1% for 4-Stars).

Well, the 5% odds would go up if D3 also decided to raise the BH odds, or add 2* bonus hero odds in addition to the current BH odds. But my money is on us losing 3*+ bonus hero chances to get 2* BH, if that were ever implemented (which I already find very unlikely).

TPF Alexis

Straycat said:

I don't think thats how it works either. If 2*s were eligible for bonus heroes, the 5% odds would go up. Its 5% per token because most of the time heroic tokens give you 2*s. If those 2*s also had a 17% chance of bonus, then the overall bonus chance would be 17%, not 5%. At least thats my understanding of it.

Let's take the Heroic Pack. You have a ~71% chance to get a 2-Star, a ~23% chance to get a 3-Star and a ~6% chance to get a 4-Star. When you open a pack, you have an overall 5% chance to get a Bonus Hero. The way we get to that math is to set the chance to get a Bonus Hero per rarity that you draw. When you draw a 3-Star or 4-Star, you have roughly a 17% chance to get a Bonus Hero. When you multiply the chance to get a cover of that rarity with the chance to get a Bonus Hero, you get the [percent] chance to get a Bonus Hero from any one pull from a Heroic pack (~4% for 3-Stars and ~1% for 4-Stars).

It's 5% per Token for Legendaries, too, where all pulls are eligible for a Bonus Hero.

Quebbster

I certainly wouldn't object to a release like 1* Spider-man, who just popped up in tokens one day. Having a release PvE for a two-star would probably be counterproductive at this Point.