Change the Vaults

Dax317

As 4 and 5 stars continue to climb in number and dilution gets worse, it is time for D3 to make some very necessary changes to the vaults. Here are my humble suggestions. Feel free to add your thoughts below.

Standard: keep as is. I know none of us like it, but until 1 stars go the way of the Dodo, it has to stay.

Elite: keep as is. This gives a second vault of 2 and 3 stars. Cost: same only get tokens 

Heroic: change to 3 and 4 stars only. There are enough 2 stars around between the first two vaults and all the different PvP, PvE, and special vaults. This would help with 4 star dilution. Cost: stay the same

Latest Legends: stay the same. Cost: stay the same.

Classic Legends: change to classic 5 stars only. We have plenty of classic 5 stars to finally justify this. With 26 5 stars in classic legends that is 78 covers. So getting a cover you need is going to be tough. This would help new players cover older characters. Also since they now put one cover in HfH for 250 cp doing this is the next logical step. Cost: This is the issue. How much? 100-150 cp per pull. I think this is a reasonable amount for a random 5 star cover.

Sweet\Savory Vaults: They need revamp these wholesale. These need to have red iso and support tokens placed in here. And the support tokens should be of each level. 

Support vaults:  changed to include all supports except Infinity Stones. Cost: These need to have a cost added to them. If they want us to use them and chase them so nadly, they need to make them where we can actually go after them. I would put a HP price on them just like covers. I don't know what price, but a price none the less.

These are my suggestions to help with dilution and to update the vaults.  I would leave the PvP and PvE vaults as they are. 

Phumade

Dax317 said:

Heroic: change to 3 and 4 stars only. There are enough 2 stars around between the first two vaults and all the different PvP, PvE, and special vaults. This would help with 4 star dilution. Cost: stay the same


Classic Legends: change to classic 5 stars only. We have plenty of classic 5 stars to finally justify this. With 26 5 stars in classic legends that is 78 covers. So getting a cover you need is going to be tough. This would help new players cover older characters. Also since they now put one cover in HfH for 250 cp doing this is the next logical step. Cost: This is the issue. How much? 100-150 cp per pull. I think this is a reasonable amount for a random 5 star cover.

To make the heroics exclusively 3* 4* means they reduce the number of available tokens. Which is not a bad idea if they replaced them with more support tokens to fill in volume I don’t know what the cp price for classics should be, but if you can direct buy for 250, then there is a reasonable price that can be set for a random 5*.

Jwallyr

I just want to comment that, IMO, the PvP vaults are awful. I don't know why you would ever want to pay 200HP on a daily deal for what is only very slightly more value (unless you're specifically chasing the featured character, and your odds are still hideous) than a 100HP daily Heroic token. At the very least, these stores should have their single-pull daily deal prices adjusted down to 100HP; I can't imagine that a lot of people pull from these stores other than with earned tokens.

firethorne

Heh, there were people questioning why elite and heroic's would both grant 2* back when the whole elite token level was introduced.  Anyway, good luck in convincing them it is time a more generous approach.  In the day of them selling $75 PNG's of Thor, you're gonna need it.

Mrcl25

Dax317 said:

Classic Legends: change to classic 5 stars only. We have plenty of classic 5 stars to finally justify this. With 26 5 stars in classic legends that is 78 covers. So getting a cover you need is going to be tough. This would help new players cover older characters. Also since they now put one cover in HfH for 250 cp doing this is the next logical step. Cost: This is the issue. How much? 100-150 cp per pull. I think this is a reasonable amount for a random 5 star cover.

With the current odds (of getting a 5* in classics) of 1:7, in theory 140 cp should get you one 5* and six 4*. So for just one random 5* cover, the cost shouldn't be higher than 100 cp, imo.

And if this is implemented (no more 4* in classics), the odds of getting a 4* in heroic should be greatly increased.  

grenadier

Honestly, they should be making all of the above changes with NO change in prices.  It's absurd to be getting junk covers all the time when playing at 3, 4 or 5* level, especially if you're spending hard-earned HP on vaults, only to end up with a pile of 2* covers.

crackninja

Mrcl25 said:

Dax317 said:

Classic Legends: change to classic 5 stars only. We have plenty of classic 5 stars to finally justify this. With 26 5 stars in classic legends that is 78 covers. So getting a cover you need is going to be tough. This would help new players cover older characters. Also since they now put one cover in HfH for 250 cp doing this is the next logical step. Cost: This is the issue. How much? 100-150 cp per pull. I think this is a reasonable amount for a random 5 star cover.

With the current odds (of getting a 5* in classics) of 1:7, in theory 140 cp should get you one 5* and six 4*. So for just one random 5* cover, the cost shouldn't be higher than 100 cp, imo.

While true, I'd be stunned if they priced this type of token under 200cp (and 250 cp is definitely a possibulity).  That's my main concern with this proposal...the 5* only token should be an additional offering, otherwise it's very likely that whatever is implemented would be a detriment to the playerbase.

Ed_Dragonrider

More desirable vaults would mean more people pulling or wanting to pull from them and spending the hp (/cp) to do so. That should help drive hp purchases for real life $£€ too. I would think this would be a win-win for all and yet i doubt much will come of it.

bbigler

Everyone wants better rewards, but the game needs balance too.  I would judge the reward system based upon the ability to smoothly transition from tier to tier.  By the time you're done champing one tier, do you have enough covers to start champing the next?  Cover distribution could be adjusted based upon that.  I'm going to ignore the HP cost of roster slots - Here's my take on it:

1* to 2* Transition - Happens too fast; you don't need to "complete" the 1* tier before putting ISO into 2*s.  One level 30 Iron Man is enough to transition as 2* covers come in very quickly.  Plus, without the option to champ 1*s, it's nearly a useless tier.  To validate it's existence, make the transition a little slower and allow champing.

2* to 3* Transition - Happens just right; by the time you finish champing 2*s, you should have a few 3*s that are ready for champing to make the transition.  The limiting resource to champ 2*s is ISO, not covers, but 3* covers come in at a good pace.

3* to 4* Transition - Happens too slow; by the time you finish champing 3*s, you may not have any 4*s that are fully covered, and this problem keeps getting worse.  Then, when you start champing 4*s, ISO becomes your biggest limitation as it can take 2 years of ISO to champ the entire tier!

4* to 5* Transition - Happens too fast OR too slow; If you hoard and/or open Latest exclusively, then you can get fully covered 5*s when you only have a dozen 4* champs.  Of course, this creates a problem of not having Classic 5*s needed for PVE.  But, if you open mostly Classics, then you can finish champing the 4* tier well before fully covering a single 5*. 

5* Play - Happens just right?; it appears to me that 5* players do not have difficulty covering new 5*s and they produce a lot more ISO than they need to champ them.  So, they can spend that extra ISO on farms or finishing the 4* tier.  Plus, established 5* players can choose between Latest, Classics or New Release Stores, whichever is better for them. 

If I could change the system, I would make 2* covers come in a little slower and 4* covers come in faster.  Of course, the cause of the 4* transition / champing problem is not cover distribution, but the size of the tier.  Champing the entire 5* tier is extremely difficult too, but I guess that's the end game. 

pfarewell

I would like to see them create a regularly rotating classics store. Select 3 5* classic covers and 12 classic four star covers. Even if the price is set 25 cp, I think players would chase covers they need. This could help with the dilution problem. 

Dragon_Nexus

bbigler said:

5* Play - Happens just right?; it appears to me that 5* players do not have difficulty covering new 5*s and they produce a lot more ISO than they need to champ them.  So, they can spend that extra ISO on farms or finishing the 4* tier.  Plus, established 5* players can choose between Latest, Classics or New Release Stores, whichever is better for them. 

Not *entirely* right.

I'd very much like to get Kitty champed as well as Cable, but I'm enitirely at the whims of RNG as to whether I get one and whether it'll be a cover that's useful (both have a 5 in one of their covers currently, and I've got two saved for Cable already. Frustrating).

ISO isn't as much of a problem as it used to be, though I still need some as newer 4*s get introduced and once in a blue moon I actually get one.

5* is still frustrating. It's also very annoying if you want to champ the older ones. I've got most of my 5* roster levelled up as high as they can go but there's no real way of going further for me unless I give up trying to champ the current 5*s and pour all my CP into classics. Which feels like a waste.

KC_Hammer

Personally I prefer the option of cheaper legendary tokens for more 4*s as opposed to a more costly option for old 5*s. I would greatly dislike classic legendary tokens being 5* only.

HoundofShadow

Let's work backwards on the dilution problem:

If it takes 5 years to come up with 78 4* and 3 years for 5*, and taking into account that there are 18 new 4* and 8 new 5* per year,

1) How long do you think you should be able to champ all the 4* for a new player who starts now without spending money?

2) How long do you expect to champ all the 5* for a new player who starts now without spending money?

3) if you have champed all the 4*, how long do you expect to be able to champ each new 4*?

4) What kind of players should be able to champ all the 4* and 5* within your stipulated timeframe? Should it be casual players or competitive players? How big of a gap should the progress rate be between a competitive player and a non-competitive player? 

Using a new 4* release as an example, this is typically how many covers one can get through placement and progression rewards in the first run (non-alliance event):

1) PvP that rewards new 4*: 2 placement covers

2) PvE that rewards new 4*: 3 covers from placement + 1 from alliance placement

3) New 4* shield training: 1 cover 

4) New 4* PvP: 1 progession cover

5) PvE with new 4* as Essential: 1 progression cover

There are a total of 9 covers up for grab.

In my opinion, if you are getting between:

1) 0-2 covers, you are probably a very casual player or a new player, or you simply don't care.

2) 3-5 covers, you are competitive or at least you make the effort to get the new 4* covers. Lack of deep roster or roster strength might be what's stopping you from getting the top spot.

3) 6-9 covers, top of in both PvE and PvP, and you have a deep roster.

If the players could agree on a realistic expectation, then the solution for dilution will naturally flow.

jredd

they need to introduce a classic legends token. why is it the only store without tokens?

jamesh

It's a mistake to think of those placement and alliance covers as things that anyone can get though.  It's not simply a matter of improving your roster to get those prizes: you need to overtake the players who are currently taking them (or wait for them to get bored of the game).

And the alliance prizes are limited to 2000 players total (100 alliances with at most 20 players each).  So you'd need to either switch alliances or push one of those other alliances out of placement.

Dax317

While true, I'd be stunned if they priced this type of token under 200cp (and 250 cp is definitely a possibulity).  That's my main concern with this proposal...the 5* only token should be an additional offering, otherwise it's very likely that whatever is implemented would be a detriment to the playerbase.

I also am afraid of this,  if this type of vault ever came to pass. But I think the 100-150 is the most reasonable and consistent range given the prices of everything currently. But I don't disagree with you at all.

HoundofShadow

@jamesh
2/9 covers come from progression, which all 3* players should be able to get. What do you think is a reasonable cover acquisition rate for casual or non-competitive players for the first run of new 4*? The highest is 6-9 for competitive players.


Realistically speaking, given that 1:7 is 140cp, and it's not a guarantee that you get a 5* cover every 7 pulls, it's unlikely to be lesser than 140cp. 

Latest 5*: 500cp or 20 LTs
classic 5*: 250cp or 12 LTs pull.

I'll expect it to be 180cp to 200cp.

marshall

I think we just need more dedicated themed stores with increase odds for specific character types like X-Men, Avengers, Villains etc. These should be happening all the time, so you can save your resources and spend on those characters to transition.

I would not mess with 3* or 4* acquisition in terms of volume, it's too fast as it is for new players. They can't roster them fast enough, even if they pay.

NeonBlue

I'm not sure if someone has already said this, but I think the easiest and least messy solution isn't necessarily a complete overhaul of the token and cover pulling system; it's increasing the bonus pull proc chance. 

When people often state their issue with the ever-growing dilution problem, it always comes down to the fact that the frequent new character release schedule means that the odds of completing your desired character decreases. Any direct solution to this issue (ie. changing the tokens, vaults, or prices themselves) could create an even more unstable game economy by being too generous or not generous enough. Once they make this change, the devs would be taking an enormous gamble.

By increasing bonus hero chances, you address the main problem of dilution without needing to revamp large elements of the economy and adding tons of unknowns into a currently very stable ecosystem. By upping bonus hero chance, people can now get the characters they want more frequently regardless of the number of possible pulls, so even if you have 300 characters in the pool, people can still reasonably finish the ones they want.  

AardvarkPepper

HoundofShadow said:

Let's work backwards on the dilution problem:

If it takes 5 years to come up with 78 4* and 3 years for 5*, and taking into account that there are 18 new 4* and 8 new 5* per year,

1) How long do you think you should be able to champ all the 4* for a new player who starts now without spending money?

I think new players that don't spend money shouldn't even have a goal of champing all 4*s.  If they set goals of champing all 4*s, part of their enjoyment comes out of seeing real roster progress, and what with dilution, limited roster slots, PvE SCLs having players with championed 5*s taking up the top 20 slots typically (if not more) even at SCL 7, the first SCL at which a player can earn 4* coversi n progression, and in PvP newer players again get stomped by 5* champion rosters once they go above - 700 or 800. - at any rate, I think MPQ is a very discouraging game for new players that actually set goals of completionist roster progression.

2) How long do you expect to champ all the 5* for a new player who starts now without spending money?

Same answer as above.  But to be clear - I think the current system rewards players that do collect more characters, but that considering the gigantic glut of characters, that the system should be changed, so in-game rewards aren't so tied to having assorted characters as Essential Characters - so newer players can enjoy the game at their own pace more.

I respect the game has to be monetized.  But I think players that do look at the scale of what they're getting into, how much time and effort it takes to make real gains in terms of roster progress, and *why* players want *all* sorts of character (what with Essential Characters and boosts) - I think it's really discouraging and makes players quit.  I think even veterans will burn out when they consider they can't just sit back and enjoy their rewards, they have to keep pushing.

3) if you have champed all the 4*, how long do you expect to be able to champ each new 4*?

I'd say it SHOULD be six months without spending.  Mind a lot of time goes into the game each day for players that are trying to make steady 4* gains.

4) What kind of players should be able to champ all the 4* and 5* within your stipulated timeframe? Should it be casual players or competitive players? How big of a gap should the progress rate be between a competitive player and a non-competitive player?

The way I think on it, you need a huge number of roster slots for that, and you also need rare covers and you also need iso, and that is a lot of grinding, a crazy amount.  And as I wrote above, I think this leads to burnout.

Frankly I think what's needed is not only more player control over what characters they can get (the current gold-star system is good but not nearly enough) - but also events that aren't so limited to having one particular character as an Essential character, but allows players more freedom of what they roster.  Yes, roster slots are (as far as I know) the "selling" point of MPQ, but with the way thing are going, we're just getting more and more characters and even veterans aren't USING most of those characters, and it all seems like same old same old, more characters, but same old grind, except with every added character, new players have it worse and worse in terms of trying to play catch up.

I really think it's time for a change.

Using a new 4* release as an example, this is typically how many covers one can get through placement and progression rewards in the first run (non-alliance event):

1) PvP that rewards new 4*: 2 placement covers

2) PvE that rewards new 4*: 3 covers from placement + 1 from alliance placement

3) New 4* shield training: 1 cover 

4) New 4* PvP: 1 progession cover

5) PvE with new 4* as Essential: 1 progression cover

There are a total of 9 covers up for grab.

In my opinion, if you are getting between:

1) 0-2 covers, you are probably a very casual player or a new player, or you simply don't care.

2) 3-5 covers, you are competitive or at least you make the effort to get the new 4* covers. Lack of deep roster or roster strength might be what's stopping you from getting the top spot.

3) 6-9 covers, top of in both PvE and PvP, and you have a deep roster.

If the players could agree on a realistic expectation, then the solution for dilution will naturally flow.

I think asking how long players should be taking to reach various stages of the game is a *smart* question.  It's a *considered* question.  But I think it's also a *secondary* question, and that the fundamental system itself needs changes - changes that will not trivialize the gains that veterans have worked so hard for, but that will permit new players to feel they're making real progress (rather than getting sucked into some gigantic horrible grind).

AardvarkPepper

NeonBlue said:

I'm not sure if someone has already said this, but I think the easiest and least messy solution isn't necessarily a complete overhaul of the token and cover pulling system; it's increasing the bonus pull proc chance.

I didn't say it.  But I thought it at my screen real hard a couple times.

I really don't want another special token series and more and more stuff to scroll through.  Bonus pull proc is just best solution in my opinion.

HoundofShadow said:

@jamesh
2/9 covers come from progression, which all 3* players should be able to get. What do you think is a reasonable cover acquisition rate for casual or non-competitive players for the first run of new 4*? The highest is 6-9 for competitive players.

Let's be clear.  Not "competitive players".  "Competitive players with developed championed 4* and likely 5* rosters".  A player in the early 3*-4* transition can have all the competitive spirit he/she wants, he/she is not going to earn 4* covers as placement rewards in PvP.

I know you know this per your earlier post in this thread

HoundofShadow said:

In my opinion, if you are getting between:

1) 0-2 covers, you are probably a very casual player or a new player, or you simply don't care.

2) 3-5 covers, you are competitive or at least you make the effort to get the new 4* covers. Lack of deep roster or roster strength might be what's stopping you from getting the top spot.

3) 6-9 covers, top of in both PvE and PvP, and you have a deep roster.

I'm simply drawing attention to that fact for others that might pass it over in your second quoted post.