contracting the 4* tier

entrailbucket

Removing a bunch of bad characters from the token pool (at any star level) would be a player-friendly move that we should all support.

However, it would also be financially catastrophic to their bottom line, so it's never going to happen. 

They'll continue to release new characters and increase the size of the pool until the game ends, because that's how they make money.

HoundofShadow

The last time they did some positive updates to characters were in September 2020. It's a small change but it was significant. 

https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/83407/character-updates-september-2020


I'm still confused about the rationale of players who need to use *all* 4*/5* characters. The need to rebalance all non-meta or non-high tier characters come from the need to use all characters, which is not something compulsory.

Since ranking characters is something that is largely based on speed and numbers, then logically, it's impossible to have non-trash/bottom tier characters. Currently, we have 116 4* characters. It means we have 116 ranking positions.

To simplify things, if we take 4* characters from position 97 to 116 and buff them/rebalance them such that they are much better than before, the total ranking positions won't be reduced to only 96 suddenly. Because as stated above, players will continue to use speed and numbers to compare how good characters are. Therefore, characters from position 78 to 96 will replace those in position 97 to 116. In the end, it's like a neverending effort to rebalance characters to make sure non are "trash"/bottom tier, which is logically impossible?

Bad

The only player-friendly move that personally I could support is to separate characters into different rooms pools when pulling.
But to lose a good part of the resources I have because some guys voted so, and adding a lot of work on devs absolutely for no reason?
No, thank you. There are plenty of ways to overcome dilution.
And after all, demoting characters won't change that everybody will use only 20, if there is no godboost.
But surely later they will complain that there is no diversity and is boring.
Those type of great ideas usually drive to that.

Mr_F

@HoundofShadow

True, but what I expect is not making all of them "meta"/top tier. I dont expect all/most of the characters to be equally or simiraly good. If everybody is super than nobody is.

So I expect to make them/some of the characters "less trashy". Quality of life changes only which make them viable option when boosted. No matter what, when Northstar or Mysterio are boosted nothing will for me to use them - they are still not good. But when Wolfsbane is I do not hesistate to use her. Why? Because she is not that bad.

Few, quick examples.

Spider-Woman: Her usual build is 5/5/3 due to Red power costing 14 so reduction from 14 AP to no more than 9 AP would make other builds a possibility and her overall playability better.

Electra: purple power will replacing protect tiles on 3 covers (now 5) and at 5 covers it will replace all enemies special tiles (including repeaters and CD).

Emma Frost: making her repeaters unremovable and undestroyable and setting limit to max 2 of each type.

TA Hulk: reducing cost of the Green power from 13 to 10, increase black power healing.

SpacemanSpiph

Re-balancing within the existing 4* tier seems overly problematic vs removing some of them and balancing for a lower tier. Bishop went from OP to never seen.

Just look at Kate Pryde vs Kitty - she mostly performs the same role, only at a less op level - why not move some of the less used 4*s down a tier? Some chars that have interesting mechanics but are too high AP/Dmg could at least be useful in 3* land - or at least not useless when required.

HoundofShadow

Generally speaking, characters who are in the bottom tier "need" to be boost/buff/rebalance to make them "useable". As long as characters are ranked based on largely speed and numbers, it's useless to do such batch rebalancing. Dr Ock and Archangel had some buffs and I rarely see them in shield sim. Let's not count boost week because they are not boosted for 365 days. At the end of the day, there will still be bottom tier characters. However, picking a couple of characters for rebalancing/buffing is fine.

I believe creating a team is all about synergy. That's what make them useable. As for Northstar and Mysterio, they can be useable and they happened to be support characters. I played with them quite often as 4* player.

For example, Mysterio/Shuri/IM40 was really great with him stunning opponent randomly and turning blue to yellow, which feeds IM40. IM40 then feeds blue and a little purple for Mysterio, green and red for Shuri. You can keep the enemies on stunlock with him and Shuri. She can fortify his trap tiles, which means his trap tiles activates twice and you have another damage source from matching fortified tiles. On top of that, Shuri reduces all friendly ap cost by 3.

As for Northstar, Domino and Prof X was a fun team to play with.

Even though I find these two teams fun in 4* land, but fun is subjective. You might think that it's not fun and  not useable. So, they still need to be rebalanced so that they fit your version of "fun" and "useable".

Bad

SpacemanSpiph said:

Re-balancing within the existing 4* tier seems overly problematic vs removing some of them and balancing for a lower tier. Bishop went from OP to never seen.

Just look at Kate Pryde vs Kitty - she mostly performs the same role, only at a less op level - why not move some of the less used 4*s down a tier? Some chars that have interesting mechanics but are too high AP/Dmg could at least be useful in 3* land - or at least not useless when required.

Oops! Wrong approach. FYI kate is op if she is teamed with a brolaris team, a lot better than her 5*, and worth to play even for a 5* player like me.
Perhaps instead of killing characters that all of you didn't bother to play it would be great to try to understand and rostering them.
Luckily what you want will never happen, for the sake of the game!

Mr_F

What I believe that some 4* and 5* need small tweaks to be closer to nowadays standards. I would not make a overhaul like for Worthy or Bishop got. I want them to do the same thing we know but, in some cases for less AP in some cases with more or better effect.

I agree, than some of us may say that X-23 is trash wheteher I find her highly usable. Some may say same about any other 4* character that is why I do not belevie that major changes are needed.

Jimsta_rooney

HoundofShadow said:

The last time they did some positive updates to characters were in September 2020. It's a small change but it was significant. 

https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/83407/character-updates-september-2020


I'm still confused about the rationale of players who need to use *all* 4*/5* characters. The need to rebalance all non-meta or non-high tier characters come from the need to use all characters, which is not something compulsory.

Since ranking characters is something that is largely based on speed and numbers, then logically, it's impossible to have non-trash/bottom tier characters. Currently, we have 116 4* characters. It means we have 116 ranking positions.

To simplify things, if we take 4* characters from position 97 to 116 and buff them/rebalance them such that they are much better than before, the total ranking positions won't be reduced to only 96 suddenly. Because as stated above, players will continue to use speed and numbers to compare how good characters are. Therefore, characters from position 78 to 96 will replace those in position 97 to 116. In the end, it's like a neverending effort to rebalance characters to make sure non are "trash"/bottom tier, which is logically impossible?

You get to a point where you see your 4 stars as ways to earn rewards, outside of pve and their own pvp I barely use 4 stars apart from chavez and polaris. 

SpacemanSpiph

Bad said:

SpacemanSpiph said:

Re-balancing within the existing 4* tier seems overly problematic vs removing some of them and balancing for a lower tier. Bishop went from OP to never seen.

Just look at Kate Pryde vs Kitty - she mostly performs the same role, only at a less op level - why not move some of the less used 4*s down a tier? Some chars that have interesting mechanics but are too high AP/Dmg could at least be useful in 3* land - or at least not useless when required.

Oops! Wrong approach. FYI kate is op if she is teamed with a brolaris team, a lot better than her 5*, and worth to play even for a 5* player like me.
Perhaps instead of killing characters that all of you didn't bother to play it would be great to try to understand and rostering them.
Luckily what you want will never happen, for the sake of the game!

Well, lets not pretend that everyone is a 5* player like you.

And if you're playing all 4*s, then it doesn't matter that you're a 5* player. I didn't say she wasn't fun or worth playing, merely that her powerset is different enough between the 2 versions that as an example, you can take the same principles that make a higher tier character work and move them to a lower tier, vs 4* Wolverine vs 3* Wolverine who operate completely different.

The only way the game continues to exist is if newer players aren't tiered out of competitive/interesting play. The ever increasing bloat of 4* (regardless of how circumstantially fun they might be to play in the few modes that allow you to control all 3 selections without and obvious slant toward particular styles) is frustrating.

If a team that is "super fun to play" only works if there are no tile movers or vice versa but takes 2-3x time to clear a stage then the fun aspect is outdone by efficiency and the desire to play on my terms. Take the example in another thread of someone running Polaris against a Venom boss round in the current alliance event. Sure, it can be a different kind of challenge to try and force all the invis tiles off the board, but the time suck if things don't go right makes it less ideal.

Bad

SpacemanSpiph said:

Well, lets not pretend that everyone is a 5* player like you.

If a team that is "super fun to play" only works if there are no tile movers or vice versa but takes 2-3x time to clear a stage then the fun aspect is outdone by efficiency and the desire to play on my terms. Take the example in another thread of someone running Polaris against a Venom boss round in the current alliance event. Sure, it can be a different kind of challenge to try and force all the invis tiles off the board, but the time suck if things don't go right makes it less ideal.

We can pretend it or we cannot, I don't have the slightest problem (by the way to be a 5* player is at the reach of anyone willing to).

I was saying I'm a 5* player and I use to play with kate 4* as she is funny and fast, obviously something you didn't know.
Yes I often use to enjoy playing with a 4* on my teams of 5*s, usually on the 4th clear, but sometimes on the first 3s too.
It is really funny as that 4* can make the battle more spicy while the others do the fast job.
In the 4th clear you can do it fast or you can do it slow. Talking on my own, then I want those 4*s where they are. 
Also you are talking like everyone was playing only in terms of speed. If everyone was competitive and playing like so there wouldn't be people moving from alliances, don't you think? There won't be casual alliances too.
If you demote a 4* carelessly by whatever randomly reason you could perfectly destroy the mvp of some newer players. 

This is a gacha game that will continue releasing new 4*s and 5*s. You better accept that. You can play on a meta team and always caring about speed, or you can experiment all characters the game is offering, imo the last are fully enjoying the work of the devs.
Then too, there would be the question of wich group is having more fun.

Akoni

Instead of demoting, deleting, or rebalancing characters, I am in favor of introducing more symmetry and interaction between characters. This was done recently with Hydra Stomper and Peggy Carter. When was the last time someone used Devil Dinosaur? Moongirl or Moonboy could be introduced with symmetrical powers to DD in order to encourage players to use him more. (Here is my shameless plug to my Moongirl/Moonboy suggestions).

Devs likely won't demote characters since doing so will require compensating players and changing stores and events. They definitely won't be deleting the characters they worked hard on. Rebalancing characters is very possible and probably will happen at some point, but only when the devs' are ready. Devs are dedicated to releasing more 4* characters for now so designing those characters to work well with the focal characters in this thread is the best way to boost the usefulness of those characters.

HoundofShadow

When I go to the supermarket to buy snacks, there are so many different flavours and brands on display. I don't have a need to eat or try out all the brands and flavours, neither do the majority of the shoppers. What we do is to narrow it down to our favourite flavours, types and brands. Similarly, most players will simply pick and choose their favourite or meta characters to champ out of the list of 116 4* characters. 

Another frequently heard problem is how new players can never catch up. This is a problem I've seeing since I first played in 2017.  What they forgot is that even if new players can catch up with all the 4* characters they will never have enough iso-8 to champ all of them. By the time they champed their 27th 4*, they will be so poor that they'll have problem running their 2* or 3* farms.

By the time they champed their 50th 4*, they have to make a choice between continue champing 4* or jump into 5* land.

So, demoting and removing/retiring 4* don't solve any of the problems. Demoting 4* simply throw the problem at 2* and 3* players. No new competitive players want to be stuck in 3* land for 1-1.5 years, if they can do it in 6-8 months. 

Removing/retiring is logically possible if the IP that they paid to Disney has reached the end of contract. However, doing so is detrimental to the psychological state of players. When characters were nerfed, it shakens them because they don't know if the characters they are working on will be nerfed. So, they are afraid to spend. Likewise, removing characters from the game is even worst. A character is still in the game when you nerf them, but removing them means you will never see them again.

SpacemanSpiph

the store lowers the price on the snacks not getting bought and pick up business from other people looking for value or less 'risk' against a more expensive option.

Sekilicious

Great. Now I want snacks.

entrailbucket

They can't.  They cannot ever stop releasing new characters, and they cannot ever retire or remove characters, because it breaks their business model. 

We should want them to reduce the number of characters, or stop releasing characters, or something similar, because we would prefer not to spend money, but a lack of revenue (or even a reduction in revenue) would kill the game.  In fact, it's the only thing that can kill the game. 

They don't need veteran players, and they especially don't need veteran players who don't spend anything.  They need new players who drop $10 here and there.  This game's business model doesn't depend on whales, which is why it's been so successful for so long.

If they changed to some other way of making money, then this would be a possibility, but in a game that's 7 years old, that seems unlikely at this point.

HoundofShadow

Right, and each character gets used by at least one player, and each character is a favourite of at least one player, regardless of how trashy the character is. So,  all of them are getting bought one way or another. The conversation in forum are typically biased towards meta characters. I still remember casual players turning the tide on chosen 5* in Fan Favourite Store. Remember these few who appeared in Fan Favourite Store: Dr Strange? OML? Deadpool?

SpacemanSpiph

Which is why increasing the character pool of 3*s and shaking up the 3* Essentials and the related PVE/PVP impact would be more valuable to the game.

as it is, at 116 chars, it now takes over a year (with the continuous intro of new 4*s every other month) to cycle through as Essentials. This means players can bypass 4*s completely without much penalty, leading to lower sales on HP/tokens etc to roster them since the chances of any one character altering the meta is ever decreasing.

There's always going to be some people who feel negatively impacted by any change - just as right now there are (and have been for some time) calls to increase 3*s, slow the rate of release, or other roster based design changes.

Currently some 3*s offer shards for multiple 4*s. This is an interesting tactic because it lowers the 'free' factor when farming 3*, but that is a practice than can only go on for so long, since we're over 2x on 4*s to 3*s and unless they want to really start watering down the shards by splitting champ rewards over 3 different characters - I think that would be far more detrimental to the community than shifting whole characters. Like, 3*Hulk gives MEH and TAH...but 3* Thor gives only Red Hulk and not Throg or Lady Thor?