tiomono said: jamesh said: tiomono said: DAZ0273 said: fight4thedream said: Are lower end rosters hurt by dilution? Only if their main priority is to champ everyone. But this isn't exclusively a 4* tier problem. The 5* tier also has this issue to a lesser extent but ironically the stakes are higher in the 5* tier as champing the "wrong" 5* characters will drastically make a player's experience less enjoyable, particularly in PvP. I don't know how true that is for the 4* tier. I agree the current state of affairs is not ideal for a new player looking to optimize their competitive edge but it's exactly for that reason that I think inter-tier 4*/5* pairings are good for the game since it allows for a greater amount of players to get their foot in the door of the highest tier of play. This is an interesting point.I transistioned to a champion 4* player with X-Force Wolverine, Luke Cage, Mordo and then Wasp (pre-buff) during the period of "meta" Cap Marvel, Medusa, Gamora, R4G and Vulture. I am reasonably confident that the bad RNG handed to me slowed my progress but each of these characters (and especially Wasp post buff) could get me to at least 575 in PvP so you could argue the toss whether having the "meta" would have advanced me faster. Probably in PvE it would have but not enough to have an impact.I am currently waiting to go to the 5* tier. So far I have Cable. That is NOT happening. There is no question however that a champed Kitty would massively influence my game strategies as I have the 4* assorted kit all ready to go.Given that a new player need only really chase a champed 4* Juggernaut, R4G and Bishop to put out a "competetive" (I don't even think Worthy Cap is necessary) PvP team with just a non optimal Kitty Pryde who has a couple of yellow, dilution suddenly doesn't look like a problem.However...each new 4* does make even getting those guys covered more difficult and as shards are glacial pace, I think new players may still struggle with dilution. I keep seeing people say shards are glacial or slow. Aren't they literally 1% slower than bonus heros on average? I get that I'm in the minority on these forums for liking shards even as is. It still somewhat amazes me just how much disdain there is for them. I feel they could even give the average player more hope in getting what they wanted from the game instead of the total "hiding behind the rng curtain" that was bonus heros. It's not 1% though. If consider only legendary tokens, and assume you opened enough for the bonus hero rate to converge to the advertised probabilities, then the new system will give you ~ 20% fewer 5* covers and 12% fewer 4* covers.Those numbers add up quite quickly, and the pain was exacerbated by bonus heroes being the last reliable way to cover new characters fast. But why consider only legendary tokens when heroics give you 4* shards too? And how many pulls do you need to hit that 20% fewer covers? How many players under the rng of bonus heros already had stats as bad or worse than that 20%?
jamesh said: tiomono said: DAZ0273 said: fight4thedream said: Are lower end rosters hurt by dilution? Only if their main priority is to champ everyone. But this isn't exclusively a 4* tier problem. The 5* tier also has this issue to a lesser extent but ironically the stakes are higher in the 5* tier as champing the "wrong" 5* characters will drastically make a player's experience less enjoyable, particularly in PvP. I don't know how true that is for the 4* tier. I agree the current state of affairs is not ideal for a new player looking to optimize their competitive edge but it's exactly for that reason that I think inter-tier 4*/5* pairings are good for the game since it allows for a greater amount of players to get their foot in the door of the highest tier of play. This is an interesting point.I transistioned to a champion 4* player with X-Force Wolverine, Luke Cage, Mordo and then Wasp (pre-buff) during the period of "meta" Cap Marvel, Medusa, Gamora, R4G and Vulture. I am reasonably confident that the bad RNG handed to me slowed my progress but each of these characters (and especially Wasp post buff) could get me to at least 575 in PvP so you could argue the toss whether having the "meta" would have advanced me faster. Probably in PvE it would have but not enough to have an impact.I am currently waiting to go to the 5* tier. So far I have Cable. That is NOT happening. There is no question however that a champed Kitty would massively influence my game strategies as I have the 4* assorted kit all ready to go.Given that a new player need only really chase a champed 4* Juggernaut, R4G and Bishop to put out a "competetive" (I don't even think Worthy Cap is necessary) PvP team with just a non optimal Kitty Pryde who has a couple of yellow, dilution suddenly doesn't look like a problem.However...each new 4* does make even getting those guys covered more difficult and as shards are glacial pace, I think new players may still struggle with dilution. I keep seeing people say shards are glacial or slow. Aren't they literally 1% slower than bonus heros on average? I get that I'm in the minority on these forums for liking shards even as is. It still somewhat amazes me just how much disdain there is for them. I feel they could even give the average player more hope in getting what they wanted from the game instead of the total "hiding behind the rng curtain" that was bonus heros. It's not 1% though. If consider only legendary tokens, and assume you opened enough for the bonus hero rate to converge to the advertised probabilities, then the new system will give you ~ 20% fewer 5* covers and 12% fewer 4* covers.Those numbers add up quite quickly, and the pain was exacerbated by bonus heroes being the last reliable way to cover new characters fast.
tiomono said: DAZ0273 said: fight4thedream said: Are lower end rosters hurt by dilution? Only if their main priority is to champ everyone. But this isn't exclusively a 4* tier problem. The 5* tier also has this issue to a lesser extent but ironically the stakes are higher in the 5* tier as champing the "wrong" 5* characters will drastically make a player's experience less enjoyable, particularly in PvP. I don't know how true that is for the 4* tier. I agree the current state of affairs is not ideal for a new player looking to optimize their competitive edge but it's exactly for that reason that I think inter-tier 4*/5* pairings are good for the game since it allows for a greater amount of players to get their foot in the door of the highest tier of play. This is an interesting point.I transistioned to a champion 4* player with X-Force Wolverine, Luke Cage, Mordo and then Wasp (pre-buff) during the period of "meta" Cap Marvel, Medusa, Gamora, R4G and Vulture. I am reasonably confident that the bad RNG handed to me slowed my progress but each of these characters (and especially Wasp post buff) could get me to at least 575 in PvP so you could argue the toss whether having the "meta" would have advanced me faster. Probably in PvE it would have but not enough to have an impact.I am currently waiting to go to the 5* tier. So far I have Cable. That is NOT happening. There is no question however that a champed Kitty would massively influence my game strategies as I have the 4* assorted kit all ready to go.Given that a new player need only really chase a champed 4* Juggernaut, R4G and Bishop to put out a "competetive" (I don't even think Worthy Cap is necessary) PvP team with just a non optimal Kitty Pryde who has a couple of yellow, dilution suddenly doesn't look like a problem.However...each new 4* does make even getting those guys covered more difficult and as shards are glacial pace, I think new players may still struggle with dilution. I keep seeing people say shards are glacial or slow. Aren't they literally 1% slower than bonus heros on average? I get that I'm in the minority on these forums for liking shards even as is. It still somewhat amazes me just how much disdain there is for them. I feel they could even give the average player more hope in getting what they wanted from the game instead of the total "hiding behind the rng curtain" that was bonus heros.
DAZ0273 said: fight4thedream said: Are lower end rosters hurt by dilution? Only if their main priority is to champ everyone. But this isn't exclusively a 4* tier problem. The 5* tier also has this issue to a lesser extent but ironically the stakes are higher in the 5* tier as champing the "wrong" 5* characters will drastically make a player's experience less enjoyable, particularly in PvP. I don't know how true that is for the 4* tier. I agree the current state of affairs is not ideal for a new player looking to optimize their competitive edge but it's exactly for that reason that I think inter-tier 4*/5* pairings are good for the game since it allows for a greater amount of players to get their foot in the door of the highest tier of play. This is an interesting point.I transistioned to a champion 4* player with X-Force Wolverine, Luke Cage, Mordo and then Wasp (pre-buff) during the period of "meta" Cap Marvel, Medusa, Gamora, R4G and Vulture. I am reasonably confident that the bad RNG handed to me slowed my progress but each of these characters (and especially Wasp post buff) could get me to at least 575 in PvP so you could argue the toss whether having the "meta" would have advanced me faster. Probably in PvE it would have but not enough to have an impact.I am currently waiting to go to the 5* tier. So far I have Cable. That is NOT happening. There is no question however that a champed Kitty would massively influence my game strategies as I have the 4* assorted kit all ready to go.Given that a new player need only really chase a champed 4* Juggernaut, R4G and Bishop to put out a "competetive" (I don't even think Worthy Cap is necessary) PvP team with just a non optimal Kitty Pryde who has a couple of yellow, dilution suddenly doesn't look like a problem.However...each new 4* does make even getting those guys covered more difficult and as shards are glacial pace, I think new players may still struggle with dilution.
fight4thedream said: Are lower end rosters hurt by dilution? Only if their main priority is to champ everyone. But this isn't exclusively a 4* tier problem. The 5* tier also has this issue to a lesser extent but ironically the stakes are higher in the 5* tier as champing the "wrong" 5* characters will drastically make a player's experience less enjoyable, particularly in PvP. I don't know how true that is for the 4* tier. I agree the current state of affairs is not ideal for a new player looking to optimize their competitive edge but it's exactly for that reason that I think inter-tier 4*/5* pairings are good for the game since it allows for a greater amount of players to get their foot in the door of the highest tier of play.
It's not 1% though. If consider only legendary tokens, and assume you opened enough for the bonus hero rate to converge to the advertised probabilities, then the new system will give you ~ 20% fewer 5* covers and 12% fewer 4* covers.
Those numbers add up quite quickly, and the pain was exacerbated by bonus heroes being the last reliable way to cover new characters fast.
If we convert the old average bonus hero rates for heroic tokens to "shard equivalents", each heroic token would give you 4.76 4* shards and 11.43 3* shards. So you're looking at 37% fewer 4* covers and 12% fewer 3* covers.
Things get a lot worse if you're buying 10- or 40-packs of heroic tokens though. Previously they offered double the bonus hero rate of single tokens, so a 10-pack would net you ~ 233 3* shards, and 89 4* shards. That kind of difference adds up fast.
PuceMoose said: Does anyone remember the exact date the shard update hit? I managed to bring 4* Juggs up to 271 today with shards, and I remember he was 3/2/4 before shards were implemented. I'm just curious to see how long it's been.
HoundofShadow said: Shards make it possible for devs to put 5* shards as progression/placement rewards in the future, if I didn't interpret it wrongly. Be warned, though, it's not going to be 30 or 50 shards per reward. I know some of you are expecting them to give full cover of 5* in progression, but it's highly impossible. Even though It happened once before, but it is gone. For now, you can get it every 90 days though from your login rewards.
Daredevil217 said: HoundofShadow said: Shards make it possible for devs to put 5* shards as progression/placement rewards in the future, if I didn't interpret it wrongly. Be warned, though, it's not going to be 30 or 50 shards per reward. I know some of you are expecting them to give full cover of 5* in progression, but it's highly impossible. Even though It happened once before, but it is gone. For now, you can get it every 90 days though from your login rewards. Who are these strawmen expecting full 5* covers in progression or even placement? Seeing as how we don’t get 5* colored covers, has any single poster stated that they expect the developers to hand out the equivalent of a full colorless cover? One of the things that bothers me with your posts is you often argue against points no one has actually made. I don’t find this tactic particularly fruitful to these types of discussions.
HoundofShadow said: There are players expecting the dev to give out 5* covers in progression. It doesn't matter if it's a colourless or coloured 5* cover.Let's not pretend players in here don't have high expectations from the devs. How often have the devs failed to meet the expectations of the players here? A rough estimate would put it at 90% of the time, or it could be even higher.In the case of shards, they were expecting the devs to:1) introduce Shards without replacing BH.2) roll out "colourless cover" without those tradeoffs. For example, one of the common feedbacks/reactions was that the dev could have shifted those rewards "taken away from them" to other part of the reward table.3) keep the percentage of gaining extra cover via shards as close to BH as possible.Based on the above observations, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that there are players expecting full colourless 5* cover in the future. If the dev were to put three 5* shards in progression in the future, it will very likely be perceived as an insult to the playerbase, or sarcastic remarks will be thrown around.
HoundofShadow said: I'm stating an opinion based on observations of past reactions and expectations (that is not limited to only shards) around here. Then, I infered that it's not unreasonable to believe that there are players expecting a full colourless 5* cover (in the future).If my opinion turns out to be wrong, then so be it. The worst case scenario is that I have a new set of data or information that I can use to refine my opinion in the future.