New Feature - Saved Covers *Updated (6/19/18)

1…1415161820

Comments

  • hopper1979
    hopper1979 Posts: 565 Critical Contributor
    Bad udpate but I am not getting dragged into thisarbuement,  5 stored covers was great it gave real flexibility.  I have gotten 5-9 of the same color in a row multiple times but at least with 5 you still have a chance to save the majority of them them, and you get a quick bonus when you finally get the right color.  With the drop rate what it is you still have the potential to have to burn colors and if you get a bad streak you are still in the same position of having to burn covers.  It is better than nothing but should have been left alone.
  • Daredevil217
    Daredevil217 Posts: 3,967 Chairperson of the Boards
    I agree with both of you. I hope the unstickying of this thread and focusing attention on the admittedly awesome hybrid PVP doesn’t mean they are done looking at this.
  • Daredevil217
    Daredevil217 Posts: 3,967 Chairperson of the Boards
    Brigby said:
    Daredevil217 said:
    I agree with both of you. I hope the unstickying of this thread and focusing attention on the admittedly awesome hybrid PVP doesn’t mean they are done looking at this.
    Don't worry. The team is still evaluating the system, and monitoring its performance. I merely un-announced this thread because it's been pinned at the top for about a week, and it starts getting cluttered otherwise.
    Thanks for the reply Brigby!
  • Nick441234
    Nick441234 Posts: 1,496 Chairperson of the Boards
    I support the change to 3 covers. At the end of the day, the people who want it to stay at 5 want it that way so that they never have to actually use the feature and cash in the 5* covers. Thats obviously completely against what the system was brought in for. 3 will make it far quicker to get a different cover so big thumbs up from me.  
  • Smart80
    Smart80 Posts: 748 Critical Contributor
    Nick441234 said:
    I support the change to 3 covers. At the end of the day, the people who want it to stay at 5 want it that way so that they never have to actually use the feature and cash in the 5* covers. Thats obviously completely against what the system was brought in for. 3 will make it far quicker to get a different cover so big thumbs up from me.  
    So the system shouldnt be to let us make the most use of the covers we get?
  • Kahmon
    Kahmon Posts: 625 Critical Contributor
    Nick441234 said:
    I support the change to 3 covers. At the end of the day, the people who want it to stay at 5 want it that way so that they never have to actually use the feature and cash in the 5* covers. Thats obviously completely against what the system was brought in for. 3 will make it far quicker to get a different cover so big thumbs up from me.  
    I totally disagree. I see it primarily as a way to save covers until useful, not to make swaps. It's even called SAVED covers. They just tacked on the trade option to free up customer service to do other things.

    10 to 1 would be fine with me. I'd even be fine with the removal of swaps completely if they gave us unlimited saved covers.
  • StevO-J
    StevO-J Posts: 751 Critical Contributor
    Is there a reason all my 5*s are still displaying 0/5 covers saved and not 0/3? I have not put any Iso into any of them, so they are all lvl. 255, but even those with a maxed power still show 0/5. Will this only update to 3 when you save your first cover? I have no 5* covers to save at the moment, but that could be a possible reason.

    Can anyone shed some light on this for me? 

    It's going to be something very obvious I missed, right? 
  • Straycat
    Straycat Posts: 963 Critical Contributor
    Kahmon said:
    Nick441234 said:
    I support the change to 3 covers. At the end of the day, the people who want it to stay at 5 want it that way so that they never have to actually use the feature and cash in the 5* covers. Thats obviously completely against what the system was brought in for. 3 will make it far quicker to get a different cover so big thumbs up from me.  
    I totally disagree. I see it primarily as a way to save covers until useful, not to make swaps. It's even called SAVED covers. They just tacked on the trade option to free up customer service to do other things.

    10 to 1 would be fine with me. I'd even be fine with the removal of swaps completely if they gave us unlimited saved covers.
    No way. What would you do with 10 saved covers for a poorly covered 5* in classics? At that point they would be better served as iso. For 2-4*s I get the idea of saving indefinitely, but 5*s have the latest countdown clock or classic dilution.

    I bet a ton of people wouldn't do a swap at 1:1 if there was unlimited saved covers. Limited bank might be necessary to kick our butt in the "right" direction.

    Those graphs posted earlier don't count swapped covers as waste. If they did I bet 3:1 looks a little better.
  • Jaedenkaal
    Jaedenkaal Posts: 3,357 Chairperson of the Boards
    OJSP said:
    StevO-J said:
    Is there a reason all my 5*s are still displaying 0/5 covers saved and not 0/3? I have not put any Iso into any of them, so they are all lvl. 255, but even those with a maxed power still show 0/5. Will this only update to 3 when you save your first cover? I have no 5* covers to save at the moment, but that could be a possible reason.

    Can anyone shed some light on this for me? 

    It's going to be something very obvious I missed, right? 
    We need to wait for the next patch. For now we can still save 5 covers, but use only 3 if we want to add a power. If we have 5 saved covers, we won’t lose them even when the bank is reduced to 3.
    Oh, I understood it as, you can only save 3 (unless you already had 4-5 saved, which you can keep until you trade them), but the display will show "out of five" until the next patch.
  • Smart80
    Smart80 Posts: 748 Critical Contributor
    Straycat said:
    Kahmon said:
    Nick441234 said:
    I support the change to 3 covers. At the end of the day, the people who want it to stay at 5 want it that way so that they never have to actually use the feature and cash in the 5* covers. Thats obviously completely against what the system was brought in for. 3 will make it far quicker to get a different cover so big thumbs up from me.  
    I totally disagree. I see it primarily as a way to save covers until useful, not to make swaps. It's even called SAVED covers. They just tacked on the trade option to free up customer service to do other things.

    10 to 1 would be fine with me. I'd even be fine with the removal of swaps completely if they gave us unlimited saved covers.
    No way. What would you do with 10 saved covers for a poorly covered 5* in classics? At that point they would be better served as iso. For 2-4*s I get the idea of saving indefinitely, but 5*s have the latest countdown clock or classic dilution.

    I bet a ton of people wouldn't do a swap at 1:1 if there was unlimited saved covers. Limited bank might be necessary to kick our butt in the "right" direction.

    Those graphs posted earlier don't count swapped covers as waste. If they did I bet 3:1 looks a little better.
    Why save 10 covers you ask? I would say to get a stronger champ and 3 LT, 50cp, 15k iso and 500hp in champ rewards, once you gather the missing covers..

    How would that make things look better, once you rightfully consider 3:1 swaps as 2 lost 5* covers? It will only show the waste to be bigger than it shows now, so it will look even worse...

    And people wouldnt swap at 1:1? 

    Wait.. Are you serious, or trolling? No disrespect intended, but you seem to have every sentence backwards imo...

  • broll
    broll Posts: 4,732 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited June 2018
    Nick441234 said:
    I support the change to 3 covers. At the end of the day, the people who want it to stay at 5 want it that way so that they never have to actually use the feature and cash in the 5* covers. Thats obviously completely against what the system was brought in for. 3 will make it far quicker to get a different cover so big thumbs up from me.  
    1.  How do you know the intent?
    2.  The system is called 'saved covers' not 'traded covers'  I would argue the save feature is more prominent than the trade based on how they chose to name it.  That's just a guess though.
  • Straycat
    Straycat Posts: 963 Critical Contributor
    edited June 2018
    Smart80 said:
    Straycat said:
    Kahmon said:
    Nick441234 said:
    I support the change to 3 covers. At the end of the day, the people who want it to stay at 5 want it that way so that they never have to actually use the feature and cash in the 5* covers. Thats obviously completely against what the system was brought in for. 3 will make it far quicker to get a different cover so big thumbs up from me.  
    I totally disagree. I see it primarily as a way to save covers until useful, not to make swaps. It's even called SAVED covers. They just tacked on the trade option to free up customer service to do other things.

    10 to 1 would be fine with me. I'd even be fine with the removal of swaps completely if they gave us unlimited saved covers.
    No way. What would you do with 10 saved covers for a poorly covered 5* in classics? At that point they would be better served as iso. For 2-4*s I get the idea of saving indefinitely, but 5*s have the latest countdown clock or classic dilution.

    I bet a ton of people wouldn't do a swap at 1:1 if there was unlimited saved covers. Limited bank might be necessary to kick our butt in the "right" direction.

    Those graphs posted earlier don't count swapped covers as waste. If they did I bet 3:1 looks a little better.
    Why save 10 covers you ask? I would say to get a stronger champ and 3 LT, 50cp, 15k iso and 500hp in champ rewards, once you gather the missing covers..

    How would that make things look better, once you rightfully consider 3:1 swaps as 2 lost 5* covers? It will only show the waste to be bigger than it shows now, so it will look even worse...

    And people wouldnt swap at 1:1? 

    Wait.. Are you serious, or trolling? No disrespect intended, but you seem to have every sentence backwards imo...

    Just saying those 10 covers will never turn into anything. That character will likely stay uncovered and unchamped. I only have 2 champs, and 1 of them has no champ levels yet. I think those 1st 13 covers are more valuable than the next 10.

    Edit: I guess the plots do count the swaps as waste. My bad

    I...may have not thought that one thru. Devils advocate, imagine people would try to game the system. If they were hesitant on leveling 5*s for iso or scaling they can keep them undercovered so they can save indefinitely, rather than have to champ. If it let you save covers even at 13 my statement would be less dumb.
  • Straycat
    Straycat Posts: 963 Critical Contributor
    broll said:
    Nick441234 said:
    I support the change to 3 covers. At the end of the day, the people who want it to stay at 5 want it that way so that they never have to actually use the feature and cash in the 5* covers. Thats obviously completely against what the system was brought in for. 3 will make it far quicker to get a different cover so big thumbs up from me.  
    1.  How do you know the intent?
    2.  The system is called 'saved covers' not 'traded covers'  I would argue the save feature is more prominent than the trade based on how they chose to name it.  That's just a guess though.
    But the graphic shows Dr Strange swapping covers. Just like how vaulting was announced as Bonus Heroes, they brand it nicely while we don't really know their main goal behind it.
  • justsing
    justsing Posts: 510 Critical Contributor
    edited June 2018
    Straycat said:

    The wasted cover per exchange rate shows 3 as the worst possible, because it doesn't count swaps as waste. If it did, wouldn't the curve say that 5 swap rate is more waste? The curve would show the waste increasing for every exchange rate until it hits a point where the rate is higher than average dupes.

    The swaps only count as waste if the swap actually happens. For every 5:1 swap, that's 4 wasted covers. For every 3:1 swap, that's 2 wasted covers. The reason why 5:1 has less waste than 3:1 is that in most cases you will cover the 5* before you reach 5 saved covers; the probability of drawing 5 or less unusable covers while covering a Latest 5* is 88%*. The probability of drawing 3 or less unusable covers while covering a Latest 5* is 76%*, so it's more likely you'll actually use a 3:1 swap, which means at least 2 wasted covers in those cases.

    * assuming you're starting from 0/0/0


  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    I thought they stated the intent very clearly:

    Saved Covers allows you to store covers you aren’t able to use, in order to convert them into another power’s level.


  • Daredevil217
    Daredevil217 Posts: 3,967 Chairperson of the Boards
    Collecting covers, NOT swapping them, and instead holding them in hopes of adding them as champ levels later is absolutely one of the things the developers not only accounted for, but built in to the system they implemented.  It's not like this was some unforeseen loophole.  It's not an either/or situation.  It is both/and.  It's spelled out right in post #1 of this thread.  Both are viable strategies that the developers built in to the feature.  They made one feature (swapping) better while they made the other feature (saving) worse.  The net result of the changes is more waste for the player.  This isn't that hard to understand.  Both saving and swapping were intended viable options for us, and trying to assert that you know which option the developers WANT you to use without anything to back it up is just silly.  Saying that using the system one way over another is "gaming" it is just as silly.

    Further, it gets tiring hearing people so concerned about how another chooses to play their game.  If I want to softcap my 5s, or be a 3* player forever, or min-max, or tap, or whatever else that is allowed within the confines of the game, who cares!?  I mentioned wanting to break down a 13-cover 5 so I could add them to the 1-cover dupe I have and bank a cover.  A couple people got up in arms about it.  Does it REALLY effect you if I get to save a single cover or if I choose not to add iso to my 5s and enter 5* hell?  At the end of the day, people should play how they want.  Someone in another thread talked about hoping all the people with champed baby Gambits uninstall the game.  Really?  In another someone got mad that hybrid PVP would allow more people access to rewards via what they termed "participation trophies".  Is this the kind of community we have? Are people really that concerned with what other people are doing?

    In studying for my psych licensing exam I read something interesting.  "Misery loves company" isn't entirely accurate.  Studies show that in actuality,  "misery loves miserable company".  So whenever I see someone THAT upset about another person "gaming" the system, I assume they are in fact miserable and I try to take it in that context.  But still, I'd like people to do a little more self-reflection and less worrying about others.  We can do better as a community.


  • HoundofShadow
    HoundofShadow Posts: 8,004 Chairperson of the Boards
    The devs have very clearly stated the intention of Saved Covers. There's zero room for misinterpretation for what the real or actual feature of "Saved Covers" is.

    Oh, great. Now I’m going to pull Red cover 9 for my 5/3/1 America Chavez even *more* easily.
    Nothing to announce right this moment, but that sort of situation is something we are directly looking at in our latest design rounds.
    The system is designed to ameliorate poor luck in covering characters, not to provide a sort of Champion bank. That portion of the feature is more of an added bonus, since we didn't want you to just lose those covers if you picked up that last color while you stocked 5 otherwise.
    https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/comment/812248/#Comment_812248

    Saved Covers
    Feature: Convert 3 or 5 covers into a different power
    Added Bonus: turn saved covers into champion reward.

    Originally, 5* needed 5 saved covers to convert it into a different power. Many players were unhappy and find that 5:1 is too many. So they reduced the no of saved covers from 5 to 3.

    The situation right now is, some players prefer the bonus portion of Saved Covers, rather than the conversion feature and they are unhappy that the max saved covers that can be saved is 3, instead of 5 for 5*.

    It's true that players can play however they want. However, when players try to change the original intention of a certain feature to fit into their particular situation, and the devs didn't follow that particular group of players' advice, those players get angry and unhappy.

    In this case, changing 5:1 to 3:1 for 5* is an improvement, and reducing max Saved Covers for 5* to 3 fulfills the intended purpose and original intention of this feature. 


  • Straycat
    Straycat Posts: 963 Critical Contributor
    So to be a better community, don't think of others? I think we have to consider multiple points of view, otherwise we'd be selfish. Isn't that what the whole vaulting debate was? It was either: vaulting= no waste for vets, or vaulting= no vintage covers for new players.
    Go thru the tape, I don't care that people want to softcap their 5s, I do that myself. I was judging someone who, in the hypothetical most generous system ever of 1:1 and unlimited bank, would still game the system to softcap their 5*s. Which, yes, it would be gaming the system. Not breaking it, not disgracing it; just gaming it.
    Just because they saw it coming doesn't mean it was intended.The game says if you can champ, you have to champ to use the system. If your strategy involves making sure you save one cover before applying another, you are not using the default system i.e. gaming it.

Categories