**** Peni Parker (Spider-Bot BFF) ****

KGB

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@LavaManLee said:
Once in 5* land, the 4*s definitely matter less and less. I used to want them all champed right away but not so much any more. This one definitely goes into my "get one cover and see what happens" pile.

Same thing with 3-4* transition. It's cool to share the two tiers in the beginning but once you're high enough in champ levels and have the variety, the 3s aren't used much in 4 land with a small handful of exceptions

Right. And isn't that how it should work? Why should characters from a lower tier ever be better than higher-tier ones?

Because we still need to roster everyone so it'd be nice if we can use them outside of essential PvE

Well, I don't think "we" need to roster anybody, for one. But think about what the metagame looks like if every single character is good enough to be usable by players at the highest tier. Why would anyone try to move up?

One thing they could do for PvE is change the essentials to better reflect the CL.

So for example CL10 would have 3 5* essentials instead of a 3, 4 and 5. CL9 would have 2 4* and 1 5* essentials. CL 8 would have 3 4* essentials. CL 7 would have 2 3* essentials and a 4 * essential and so on down.

Then players who are playing CL10 would be using their 5* characters exclusively (unless they wanted to bring a 4* of course).

Alternatively, there are SO many characters now that have 3/4/5 iterations of their character (or 3/4 or 3/5) that if the essential node was Deadpool you'd be free to use any Deadpool (3, 4 or 5) for that node.

KGB

entrailbucket

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@LavaManLee said:
Once in 5* land, the 4*s definitely matter less and less. I used to want them all champed right away but not so much any more. This one definitely goes into my "get one cover and see what happens" pile.

Same thing with 3-4* transition. It's cool to share the two tiers in the beginning but once you're high enough in champ levels and have the variety, the 3s aren't used much in 4 land with a small handful of exceptions

Right. And isn't that how it should work? Why should characters from a lower tier ever be better than higher-tier ones?

Because we still need to roster everyone so it'd be nice if we can use them outside of essential PvE

Well, I don't think "we" need to roster anybody, for one. But think about what the metagame looks like if every single character is good enough to be usable by players at the highest tier. Why would anyone try to move up?

One thing they could do for PvE is change the essentials to better reflect the CL.

So for example CL10 would have 3 5* essentials instead of a 3, 4 and 5. CL9 would have 2 4* and 1 5* essentials. CL 8 would have 3 4* essentials. CL 7 would have 2 3* essentials and a 4 * essential and so on down.

Then players who are playing CL10 would be using their 5* characters exclusively (unless they wanted to bring a 4* of course).

Alternatively, there are SO many characters now that have 3/4/5 iterations of their character (or 3/4 or 3/5) that if the essential node was Deadpool you'd be free to use any Deadpool (3, 4 or 5) for that node.

KGB

Any version of these ideas would probably cost them a bunch of money, though, which makes them pretty unlikely.

KGB

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@LavaManLee said:
Once in 5* land, the 4*s definitely matter less and less. I used to want them all champed right away but not so much any more. This one definitely goes into my "get one cover and see what happens" pile.

Same thing with 3-4* transition. It's cool to share the two tiers in the beginning but once you're high enough in champ levels and have the variety, the 3s aren't used much in 4 land with a small handful of exceptions

Right. And isn't that how it should work? Why should characters from a lower tier ever be better than higher-tier ones?

Because we still need to roster everyone so it'd be nice if we can use them outside of essential PvE

Well, I don't think "we" need to roster anybody, for one. But think about what the metagame looks like if every single character is good enough to be usable by players at the highest tier. Why would anyone try to move up?

One thing they could do for PvE is change the essentials to better reflect the CL.

So for example CL10 would have 3 5* essentials instead of a 3, 4 and 5. CL9 would have 2 4* and 1 5* essentials. CL 8 would have 3 4* essentials. CL 7 would have 2 3* essentials and a 4 * essential and so on down.

Then players who are playing CL10 would be using their 5* characters exclusively (unless they wanted to bring a 4* of course).

Alternatively, there are SO many characters now that have 3/4/5 iterations of their character (or 3/4 or 3/5) that if the essential node was Deadpool you'd be free to use any Deadpool (3, 4 or 5) for that node.

KGB

Any version of these ideas would probably cost them a bunch of money, though, which makes them pretty unlikely.

Do you think that would lead to a ton of players just selling off all their 3s and 2s and potentially 4* and just going with 5*s only? I suppose some people might do that but I bet the majority of players would retain those characters for farming purposes since it's such a lucrative thing to do.

KGB

entrailbucket

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@LavaManLee said:
Once in 5* land, the 4*s definitely matter less and less. I used to want them all champed right away but not so much any more. This one definitely goes into my "get one cover and see what happens" pile.

Same thing with 3-4* transition. It's cool to share the two tiers in the beginning but once you're high enough in champ levels and have the variety, the 3s aren't used much in 4 land with a small handful of exceptions

Right. And isn't that how it should work? Why should characters from a lower tier ever be better than higher-tier ones?

Because we still need to roster everyone so it'd be nice if we can use them outside of essential PvE

Well, I don't think "we" need to roster anybody, for one. But think about what the metagame looks like if every single character is good enough to be usable by players at the highest tier. Why would anyone try to move up?

One thing they could do for PvE is change the essentials to better reflect the CL.

So for example CL10 would have 3 5* essentials instead of a 3, 4 and 5. CL9 would have 2 4* and 1 5* essentials. CL 8 would have 3 4* essentials. CL 7 would have 2 3* essentials and a 4 * essential and so on down.

Then players who are playing CL10 would be using their 5* characters exclusively (unless they wanted to bring a 4* of course).

Alternatively, there are SO many characters now that have 3/4/5 iterations of their character (or 3/4 or 3/5) that if the essential node was Deadpool you'd be free to use any Deadpool (3, 4 or 5) for that node.

KGB

Any version of these ideas would probably cost them a bunch of money, though, which makes them pretty unlikely.

Do you think that would lead to a ton of players just selling off all their 3s and 2s and potentially 4* and just going with 5*s only? I suppose some people might do that but I bet the majority of players would retain those characters for farming purposes since it's such a lucrative thing to do.

KGB

I think endgame players would consider it, and some would go for it, but the real problem is that this relieves the financial pressure that essentials exert on the masses of lower-tier rosters.

KGB

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@LavaManLee said:
Once in 5* land, the 4*s definitely matter less and less. I used to want them all champed right away but not so much any more. This one definitely goes into my "get one cover and see what happens" pile.

Same thing with 3-4* transition. It's cool to share the two tiers in the beginning but once you're high enough in champ levels and have the variety, the 3s aren't used much in 4 land with a small handful of exceptions

Right. And isn't that how it should work? Why should characters from a lower tier ever be better than higher-tier ones?

Because we still need to roster everyone so it'd be nice if we can use them outside of essential PvE

Well, I don't think "we" need to roster anybody, for one. But think about what the metagame looks like if every single character is good enough to be usable by players at the highest tier. Why would anyone try to move up?

One thing they could do for PvE is change the essentials to better reflect the CL.

So for example CL10 would have 3 5* essentials instead of a 3, 4 and 5. CL9 would have 2 4* and 1 5* essentials. CL 8 would have 3 4* essentials. CL 7 would have 2 3* essentials and a 4 * essential and so on down.

Then players who are playing CL10 would be using their 5* characters exclusively (unless they wanted to bring a 4* of course).

Alternatively, there are SO many characters now that have 3/4/5 iterations of their character (or 3/4 or 3/5) that if the essential node was Deadpool you'd be free to use any Deadpool (3, 4 or 5) for that node.

KGB

Any version of these ideas would probably cost them a bunch of money, though, which makes them pretty unlikely.

Do you think that would lead to a ton of players just selling off all their 3s and 2s and potentially 4* and just going with 5*s only? I suppose some people might do that but I bet the majority of players would retain those characters for farming purposes since it's such a lucrative thing to do.

KGB

I think endgame players would consider it, and some would go for it, but the real problem is that this relieves the financial pressure that essentials exert on the masses of lower-tier rosters.

Interesting take. I'd think it increases it because most players want to play in CL7+ ASAP for the better rewards. Once you start playing at that level you need to have pretty much all the 3s and 4s rostered because there would be no more 2* essential. Once you hit CL8 and above you need pretty much all the 4s rostered since all 3 essentials are 4*s. To play 9/10 you need all the 5s too.

KGB

entrailbucket

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@LavaManLee said:
Once in 5* land, the 4*s definitely matter less and less. I used to want them all champed right away but not so much any more. This one definitely goes into my "get one cover and see what happens" pile.

Same thing with 3-4* transition. It's cool to share the two tiers in the beginning but once you're high enough in champ levels and have the variety, the 3s aren't used much in 4 land with a small handful of exceptions

Right. And isn't that how it should work? Why should characters from a lower tier ever be better than higher-tier ones?

Because we still need to roster everyone so it'd be nice if we can use them outside of essential PvE

Well, I don't think "we" need to roster anybody, for one. But think about what the metagame looks like if every single character is good enough to be usable by players at the highest tier. Why would anyone try to move up?

One thing they could do for PvE is change the essentials to better reflect the CL.

So for example CL10 would have 3 5* essentials instead of a 3, 4 and 5. CL9 would have 2 4* and 1 5* essentials. CL 8 would have 3 4* essentials. CL 7 would have 2 3* essentials and a 4 * essential and so on down.

Then players who are playing CL10 would be using their 5* characters exclusively (unless they wanted to bring a 4* of course).

Alternatively, there are SO many characters now that have 3/4/5 iterations of their character (or 3/4 or 3/5) that if the essential node was Deadpool you'd be free to use any Deadpool (3, 4 or 5) for that node.

KGB

Any version of these ideas would probably cost them a bunch of money, though, which makes them pretty unlikely.

Do you think that would lead to a ton of players just selling off all their 3s and 2s and potentially 4* and just going with 5*s only? I suppose some people might do that but I bet the majority of players would retain those characters for farming purposes since it's such a lucrative thing to do.

KGB

I think endgame players would consider it, and some would go for it, but the real problem is that this relieves the financial pressure that essentials exert on the masses of lower-tier rosters.

Interesting take. I'd think it increases it because most players want to play in CL7+ ASAP for the better rewards. Once you start playing at that level you need to have pretty much all the 3s and 4s rostered because there would be no more 2* essential. Once you hit CL8 and above you need pretty much all the 4s rostered since all 3 essentials are 4*s. To play 9/10 you need all the 5s too.

KGB

I'm not sure that's how it actually works in practice. Do we know that players want to play the highest CL? Do we know that players don't bother to play events at all if they don't have the essential? This seems like projecting a hardcore player's viewpoints and strategy onto some very casual players.

Essentials work because they tell new players "you better not sell that guy, because you're going to need him forever." That kind of pressure is what sells slots. If the game starts saying "well, you don't really need that entire tier anymore" I think that would cause problems.

will7612

I think it would make lots of players play higher levels for the rewards, and for more playable levels, since it would bring much needed variety to the game.

Also its URGENT to get new PVEs

Any version of these ideas would probably cost them a bunch of money, though, which makes them pretty unlikely.

will7612

Related to the Main topic (Peni), I also think she is a "roster slot waste", not bringing any value to the current Meta and teams; besides, I also was expecting REAL NEW CHARACTERS, not more iterations or B-Side Characters

Scofie

@LavaManLee said:

@superwaxley said:

@Scofie said:
To avoid power creep with every single release, you have to put in something that isn't great every now and again. Some releases are always going to be mid-tier or just "usable in the right circumstances".

My "4*s I don't use unless essential" list is currently however many 4s there are minus 3. Any new 4s are very likely to go on the pile, unless they have a fun new usable power or can go winfinite, in which case I'll play them a few times for fun.

At this point, they could release a 4* cheese sandwich (that feeds Venomsaurus), and we'd roster it. But nobody is spending tons of cash to get it.

Hey Scofie, which 4*'s are your 'minus 3'?

I'm not Scofie but will guess. Polaris. Grocket. Karnak. Might throw a Juggernaut and/or Thanos in there also.

Grocket, Polaris and Juggernaut for the DDQ node. I used to use 4* Thanos for Challenge nodes until I champed Shang/MThor and Kang came along.

KGB

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@LavaManLee said:
Once in 5* land, the 4*s definitely matter less and less. I used to want them all champed right away but not so much any more. This one definitely goes into my "get one cover and see what happens" pile.

Same thing with 3-4* transition. It's cool to share the two tiers in the beginning but once you're high enough in champ levels and have the variety, the 3s aren't used much in 4 land with a small handful of exceptions

Right. And isn't that how it should work? Why should characters from a lower tier ever be better than higher-tier ones?

Because we still need to roster everyone so it'd be nice if we can use them outside of essential PvE

Well, I don't think "we" need to roster anybody, for one. But think about what the metagame looks like if every single character is good enough to be usable by players at the highest tier. Why would anyone try to move up?

One thing they could do for PvE is change the essentials to better reflect the CL.

So for example CL10 would have 3 5* essentials instead of a 3, 4 and 5. CL9 would have 2 4* and 1 5* essentials. CL 8 would have 3 4* essentials. CL 7 would have 2 3* essentials and a 4 * essential and so on down.

Then players who are playing CL10 would be using their 5* characters exclusively (unless they wanted to bring a 4* of course).

Alternatively, there are SO many characters now that have 3/4/5 iterations of their character (or 3/4 or 3/5) that if the essential node was Deadpool you'd be free to use any Deadpool (3, 4 or 5) for that node.

KGB

Any version of these ideas would probably cost them a bunch of money, though, which makes them pretty unlikely.

Do you think that would lead to a ton of players just selling off all their 3s and 2s and potentially 4* and just going with 5*s only? I suppose some people might do that but I bet the majority of players would retain those characters for farming purposes since it's such a lucrative thing to do.

KGB

I think endgame players would consider it, and some would go for it, but the real problem is that this relieves the financial pressure that essentials exert on the masses of lower-tier rosters.

Interesting take. I'd think it increases it because most players want to play in CL7+ ASAP for the better rewards. Once you start playing at that level you need to have pretty much all the 3s and 4s rostered because there would be no more 2* essential. Once you hit CL8 and above you need pretty much all the 4s rostered since all 3 essentials are 4*s. To play 9/10 you need all the 5s too.

KGB

I'm not sure that's how it actually works in practice. Do we know that players want to play the highest CL? Do we know that players don't bother to play events at all if they don't have the essential? This seems like projecting a hardcore player's viewpoints and strategy onto some very casual players.

Essentials work because they tell new players "you better not sell that guy, because you're going to need him forever." That kind of pressure is what sells slots. If the game starts saying "well, you don't really need that entire tier anymore" I think that would cause problems.

Obviously they know for sure whether not having the essential means players don't play an event at all (my personal guess is that casual players don't care if they don't have one of the essentials because they just want to play a few nodes and probably don't complete everything anyway).

The 1* tier has already been relegated to totally pointless (you can get all the DDQ rewards without doing the 1* node so it's just a bit of extra ISO at this point). I suspect pretty much all of us have sold off our 1* other than keeping MBW with 5 Blue and/or Spiderman with 1 Purple to give out as team ups. But the counter to that is that the 1* tier has no champion rewards so there is no farming to be done there (I know I'd roster and farm all the 1* if there were champ rewards for them). You'd think they'd create 1* champ rewards to entice us to roster and farm 1*...

KGB

Punisher5784

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@LavaManLee said:
Once in 5* land, the 4*s definitely matter less and less. I used to want them all champed right away but not so much any more. This one definitely goes into my "get one cover and see what happens" pile.

Same thing with 3-4* transition. It's cool to share the two tiers in the beginning but once you're high enough in champ levels and have the variety, the 3s aren't used much in 4 land with a small handful of exceptions

Right. And isn't that how it should work? Why should characters from a lower tier ever be better than higher-tier ones?

Because we still need to roster everyone so it'd be nice if we can use them outside of essential PvE

Well, I don't think "we" need to roster anybody, for one. But think about what the metagame looks like if every single character is good enough to be usable by players at the highest tier. Why would anyone try to move up?

One thing they could do for PvE is change the essentials to better reflect the CL.

So for example CL10 would have 3 5* essentials instead of a 3, 4 and 5. CL9 would have 2 4* and 1 5* essentials. CL 8 would have 3 4* essentials. CL 7 would have 2 3* essentials and a 4 * essential and so on down.

Then players who are playing CL10 would be using their 5* characters exclusively (unless they wanted to bring a 4* of course).

Alternatively, there are SO many characters now that have 3/4/5 iterations of their character (or 3/4 or 3/5) that if the essential node was Deadpool you'd be free to use any Deadpool (3, 4 or 5) for that node.

KGB

Any version of these ideas would probably cost them a bunch of money, though, which makes them pretty unlikely.

Do you think that would lead to a ton of players just selling off all their 3s and 2s and potentially 4* and just going with 5*s only? I suppose some people might do that but I bet the majority of players would retain those characters for farming purposes since it's such a lucrative thing to do.

KGB

I think endgame players would consider it, and some would go for it, but the real problem is that this relieves the financial pressure that essentials exert on the masses of lower-tier rosters.

Interesting take. I'd think it increases it because most players want to play in CL7+ ASAP for the better rewards. Once you start playing at that level you need to have pretty much all the 3s and 4s rostered because there would be no more 2* essential. Once you hit CL8 and above you need pretty much all the 4s rostered since all 3 essentials are 4*s. To play 9/10 you need all the 5s too.

KGB

I'm not sure that's how it actually works in practice. Do we know that players want to play the highest CL? Do we know that players don't bother to play events at all if they don't have the essential? This seems like projecting a hardcore player's viewpoints and strategy onto some very casual players.

Essentials work because they tell new players "you better not sell that guy, because you're going to need him forever." That kind of pressure is what sells slots. If the game starts saying "well, you don't really need that entire tier anymore" I think that would cause problems.

Obviously they know for sure whether not having the essential means players don't play an event at all (my personal guess is that casual players don't care if they don't have one of the essentials because they just want to play a few nodes and probably don't complete everything anyway).

The 1* tier has already been relegated to totally pointless (you can get all the DDQ rewards without doing the 1* node so it's just a bit of extra ISO at this point). I suspect pretty much all of us have sold off our 1* other than keeping MBW with 5 Blue and/or Spiderman with 1 Purple to give out as team ups. But the counter to that is that the 1* tier has no champion rewards so there is no farming to be done there (I know I'd roster and farm all the 1* if there were champ rewards for them). You'd think they'd create 1* champ rewards to entice us to roster and farm 1*...

KGB

The devs said a few years ago the 1* champs would be too easy unless they created more 1*s which is pointless.

entrailbucket

@Punisher5784 said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@LavaManLee said:
Once in 5* land, the 4*s definitely matter less and less. I used to want them all champed right away but not so much any more. This one definitely goes into my "get one cover and see what happens" pile.

Same thing with 3-4* transition. It's cool to share the two tiers in the beginning but once you're high enough in champ levels and have the variety, the 3s aren't used much in 4 land with a small handful of exceptions

Right. And isn't that how it should work? Why should characters from a lower tier ever be better than higher-tier ones?

Because we still need to roster everyone so it'd be nice if we can use them outside of essential PvE

Well, I don't think "we" need to roster anybody, for one. But think about what the metagame looks like if every single character is good enough to be usable by players at the highest tier. Why would anyone try to move up?

One thing they could do for PvE is change the essentials to better reflect the CL.

So for example CL10 would have 3 5* essentials instead of a 3, 4 and 5. CL9 would have 2 4* and 1 5* essentials. CL 8 would have 3 4* essentials. CL 7 would have 2 3* essentials and a 4 * essential and so on down.

Then players who are playing CL10 would be using their 5* characters exclusively (unless they wanted to bring a 4* of course).

Alternatively, there are SO many characters now that have 3/4/5 iterations of their character (or 3/4 or 3/5) that if the essential node was Deadpool you'd be free to use any Deadpool (3, 4 or 5) for that node.

KGB

Any version of these ideas would probably cost them a bunch of money, though, which makes them pretty unlikely.

Do you think that would lead to a ton of players just selling off all their 3s and 2s and potentially 4* and just going with 5*s only? I suppose some people might do that but I bet the majority of players would retain those characters for farming purposes since it's such a lucrative thing to do.

KGB

I think endgame players would consider it, and some would go for it, but the real problem is that this relieves the financial pressure that essentials exert on the masses of lower-tier rosters.

Interesting take. I'd think it increases it because most players want to play in CL7+ ASAP for the better rewards. Once you start playing at that level you need to have pretty much all the 3s and 4s rostered because there would be no more 2* essential. Once you hit CL8 and above you need pretty much all the 4s rostered since all 3 essentials are 4*s. To play 9/10 you need all the 5s too.

KGB

I'm not sure that's how it actually works in practice. Do we know that players want to play the highest CL? Do we know that players don't bother to play events at all if they don't have the essential? This seems like projecting a hardcore player's viewpoints and strategy onto some very casual players.

Essentials work because they tell new players "you better not sell that guy, because you're going to need him forever." That kind of pressure is what sells slots. If the game starts saying "well, you don't really need that entire tier anymore" I think that would cause problems.

Obviously they know for sure whether not having the essential means players don't play an event at all (my personal guess is that casual players don't care if they don't have one of the essentials because they just want to play a few nodes and probably don't complete everything anyway).

The 1* tier has already been relegated to totally pointless (you can get all the DDQ rewards without doing the 1* node so it's just a bit of extra ISO at this point). I suspect pretty much all of us have sold off our 1* other than keeping MBW with 5 Blue and/or Spiderman with 1 Purple to give out as team ups. But the counter to that is that the 1* tier has no champion rewards so there is no farming to be done there (I know I'd roster and farm all the 1* if there were champ rewards for them). You'd think they'd create 1* champ rewards to entice us to roster and farm 1*...

KGB

The devs said a few years ago the 1* champs would be too easy unless they created more 1*s which is pointless.

When they created champions there was a reason/explanation for why they didn't include 1* but I don't remember what it was. It's on this forum, if you can find that post from 2015 or whatever.

Punisher5784

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@LavaManLee said:
Once in 5* land, the 4*s definitely matter less and less. I used to want them all champed right away but not so much any more. This one definitely goes into my "get one cover and see what happens" pile.

Same thing with 3-4* transition. It's cool to share the two tiers in the beginning but once you're high enough in champ levels and have the variety, the 3s aren't used much in 4 land with a small handful of exceptions

Right. And isn't that how it should work? Why should characters from a lower tier ever be better than higher-tier ones?

Because we still need to roster everyone so it'd be nice if we can use them outside of essential PvE

Well, I don't think "we" need to roster anybody, for one. But think about what the metagame looks like if every single character is good enough to be usable by players at the highest tier. Why would anyone try to move up?

One thing they could do for PvE is change the essentials to better reflect the CL.

So for example CL10 would have 3 5* essentials instead of a 3, 4 and 5. CL9 would have 2 4* and 1 5* essentials. CL 8 would have 3 4* essentials. CL 7 would have 2 3* essentials and a 4 * essential and so on down.

Then players who are playing CL10 would be using their 5* characters exclusively (unless they wanted to bring a 4* of course).

Alternatively, there are SO many characters now that have 3/4/5 iterations of their character (or 3/4 or 3/5) that if the essential node was Deadpool you'd be free to use any Deadpool (3, 4 or 5) for that node.

KGB

Any version of these ideas would probably cost them a bunch of money, though, which makes them pretty unlikely.

Do you think that would lead to a ton of players just selling off all their 3s and 2s and potentially 4* and just going with 5*s only? I suppose some people might do that but I bet the majority of players would retain those characters for farming purposes since it's such a lucrative thing to do.

KGB

I think endgame players would consider it, and some would go for it, but the real problem is that this relieves the financial pressure that essentials exert on the masses of lower-tier rosters.

Interesting take. I'd think it increases it because most players want to play in CL7+ ASAP for the better rewards. Once you start playing at that level you need to have pretty much all the 3s and 4s rostered because there would be no more 2* essential. Once you hit CL8 and above you need pretty much all the 4s rostered since all 3 essentials are 4*s. To play 9/10 you need all the 5s too.

KGB

I'm not sure that's how it actually works in practice. Do we know that players want to play the highest CL? Do we know that players don't bother to play events at all if they don't have the essential? This seems like projecting a hardcore player's viewpoints and strategy onto some very casual players.

Essentials work because they tell new players "you better not sell that guy, because you're going to need him forever." That kind of pressure is what sells slots. If the game starts saying "well, you don't really need that entire tier anymore" I think that would cause problems.

Obviously they know for sure whether not having the essential means players don't play an event at all (my personal guess is that casual players don't care if they don't have one of the essentials because they just want to play a few nodes and probably don't complete everything anyway).

The 1* tier has already been relegated to totally pointless (you can get all the DDQ rewards without doing the 1* node so it's just a bit of extra ISO at this point). I suspect pretty much all of us have sold off our 1* other than keeping MBW with 5 Blue and/or Spiderman with 1 Purple to give out as team ups. But the counter to that is that the 1* tier has no champion rewards so there is no farming to be done there (I know I'd roster and farm all the 1* if there were champ rewards for them). You'd think they'd create 1* champ rewards to entice us to roster and farm 1*...

KGB

The devs said a few years ago the 1* champs would be too easy unless they created more 1*s which is pointless.

When they created champions there was a reason/explanation for why they didn't include 1* but I don't remember what it was. It's on this forum, if you can find that post from 2015 or whatever.

I know, I just told you the reason, but I'm not looking for the actual response

Bad

Is there someone pissed off out there because of the many offers released and because they are taking advantage of the many gacha's games resources?
Because here is the opposite.
Anyone having a minimum idea of how this industry works already knows that nothing is for free, this game is just a service, and talented artist go to another place if they don't get paid.
Usually the people with less rights to claim anything are the ones complaining the most.

entrailbucket

@Punisher5784 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@LavaManLee said:
Once in 5* land, the 4*s definitely matter less and less. I used to want them all champed right away but not so much any more. This one definitely goes into my "get one cover and see what happens" pile.

Same thing with 3-4* transition. It's cool to share the two tiers in the beginning but once you're high enough in champ levels and have the variety, the 3s aren't used much in 4 land with a small handful of exceptions

Right. And isn't that how it should work? Why should characters from a lower tier ever be better than higher-tier ones?

Because we still need to roster everyone so it'd be nice if we can use them outside of essential PvE

Well, I don't think "we" need to roster anybody, for one. But think about what the metagame looks like if every single character is good enough to be usable by players at the highest tier. Why would anyone try to move up?

One thing they could do for PvE is change the essentials to better reflect the CL.

So for example CL10 would have 3 5* essentials instead of a 3, 4 and 5. CL9 would have 2 4* and 1 5* essentials. CL 8 would have 3 4* essentials. CL 7 would have 2 3* essentials and a 4 * essential and so on down.

Then players who are playing CL10 would be using their 5* characters exclusively (unless they wanted to bring a 4* of course).

Alternatively, there are SO many characters now that have 3/4/5 iterations of their character (or 3/4 or 3/5) that if the essential node was Deadpool you'd be free to use any Deadpool (3, 4 or 5) for that node.

KGB

Any version of these ideas would probably cost them a bunch of money, though, which makes them pretty unlikely.

Do you think that would lead to a ton of players just selling off all their 3s and 2s and potentially 4* and just going with 5*s only? I suppose some people might do that but I bet the majority of players would retain those characters for farming purposes since it's such a lucrative thing to do.

KGB

I think endgame players would consider it, and some would go for it, but the real problem is that this relieves the financial pressure that essentials exert on the masses of lower-tier rosters.

Interesting take. I'd think it increases it because most players want to play in CL7+ ASAP for the better rewards. Once you start playing at that level you need to have pretty much all the 3s and 4s rostered because there would be no more 2* essential. Once you hit CL8 and above you need pretty much all the 4s rostered since all 3 essentials are 4*s. To play 9/10 you need all the 5s too.

KGB

I'm not sure that's how it actually works in practice. Do we know that players want to play the highest CL? Do we know that players don't bother to play events at all if they don't have the essential? This seems like projecting a hardcore player's viewpoints and strategy onto some very casual players.

Essentials work because they tell new players "you better not sell that guy, because you're going to need him forever." That kind of pressure is what sells slots. If the game starts saying "well, you don't really need that entire tier anymore" I think that would cause problems.

Obviously they know for sure whether not having the essential means players don't play an event at all (my personal guess is that casual players don't care if they don't have one of the essentials because they just want to play a few nodes and probably don't complete everything anyway).

The 1* tier has already been relegated to totally pointless (you can get all the DDQ rewards without doing the 1* node so it's just a bit of extra ISO at this point). I suspect pretty much all of us have sold off our 1* other than keeping MBW with 5 Blue and/or Spiderman with 1 Purple to give out as team ups. But the counter to that is that the 1* tier has no champion rewards so there is no farming to be done there (I know I'd roster and farm all the 1* if there were champ rewards for them). You'd think they'd create 1* champ rewards to entice us to roster and farm 1*...

KGB

The devs said a few years ago the 1* champs would be too easy unless they created more 1*s which is pointless.

When they created champions there was a reason/explanation for why they didn't include 1* but I don't remember what it was. It's on this forum, if you can find that post from 2015 or whatever.

I know, I just told you the reason, but I'm not looking for the actual response

Sorry, I thought you were giving a reason for why they haven't done it since 2015, not the original reason. Often those are different things in this game!

Punisher5784

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@KGB said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@entrailbucket said:

@Punisher5784 said:

@LavaManLee said:
Once in 5* land, the 4*s definitely matter less and less. I used to want them all champed right away but not so much any more. This one definitely goes into my "get one cover and see what happens" pile.

Same thing with 3-4* transition. It's cool to share the two tiers in the beginning but once you're high enough in champ levels and have the variety, the 3s aren't used much in 4 land with a small handful of exceptions

Right. And isn't that how it should work? Why should characters from a lower tier ever be better than higher-tier ones?

Because we still need to roster everyone so it'd be nice if we can use them outside of essential PvE

Well, I don't think "we" need to roster anybody, for one. But think about what the metagame looks like if every single character is good enough to be usable by players at the highest tier. Why would anyone try to move up?

One thing they could do for PvE is change the essentials to better reflect the CL.

So for example CL10 would have 3 5* essentials instead of a 3, 4 and 5. CL9 would have 2 4* and 1 5* essentials. CL 8 would have 3 4* essentials. CL 7 would have 2 3* essentials and a 4 * essential and so on down.

Then players who are playing CL10 would be using their 5* characters exclusively (unless they wanted to bring a 4* of course).

Alternatively, there are SO many characters now that have 3/4/5 iterations of their character (or 3/4 or 3/5) that if the essential node was Deadpool you'd be free to use any Deadpool (3, 4 or 5) for that node.

KGB

Any version of these ideas would probably cost them a bunch of money, though, which makes them pretty unlikely.

Do you think that would lead to a ton of players just selling off all their 3s and 2s and potentially 4* and just going with 5*s only? I suppose some people might do that but I bet the majority of players would retain those characters for farming purposes since it's such a lucrative thing to do.

KGB

I think endgame players would consider it, and some would go for it, but the real problem is that this relieves the financial pressure that essentials exert on the masses of lower-tier rosters.

Interesting take. I'd think it increases it because most players want to play in CL7+ ASAP for the better rewards. Once you start playing at that level you need to have pretty much all the 3s and 4s rostered because there would be no more 2* essential. Once you hit CL8 and above you need pretty much all the 4s rostered since all 3 essentials are 4*s. To play 9/10 you need all the 5s too.

KGB

I'm not sure that's how it actually works in practice. Do we know that players want to play the highest CL? Do we know that players don't bother to play events at all if they don't have the essential? This seems like projecting a hardcore player's viewpoints and strategy onto some very casual players.

Essentials work because they tell new players "you better not sell that guy, because you're going to need him forever." That kind of pressure is what sells slots. If the game starts saying "well, you don't really need that entire tier anymore" I think that would cause problems.

Obviously they know for sure whether not having the essential means players don't play an event at all (my personal guess is that casual players don't care if they don't have one of the essentials because they just want to play a few nodes and probably don't complete everything anyway).

The 1* tier has already been relegated to totally pointless (you can get all the DDQ rewards without doing the 1* node so it's just a bit of extra ISO at this point). I suspect pretty much all of us have sold off our 1* other than keeping MBW with 5 Blue and/or Spiderman with 1 Purple to give out as team ups. But the counter to that is that the 1* tier has no champion rewards so there is no farming to be done there (I know I'd roster and farm all the 1* if there were champ rewards for them). You'd think they'd create 1* champ rewards to entice us to roster and farm 1*...

KGB

The devs said a few years ago the 1* champs would be too easy unless they created more 1*s which is pointless.

When they created champions there was a reason/explanation for why they didn't include 1* but I don't remember what it was. It's on this forum, if you can find that post from 2015 or whatever.

I know, I just told you the reason, but I'm not looking for the actual response

Sorry, I thought you were giving a reason for why they haven't done it since 2015, not the original reason. Often those are different things in this game!

No worries cause I just overheard from my father's, brother's, nephew's, cousin's, former roommate that..

After Anniversary, they are giving us 4/2* releases just like 3/5*. This will help expand the 2* tier and shards to 3s. The first 2/4 will be Doctor Strange

Tiger_Wong

(I really need to increase my ignore list).

Peni is a stun character. There’s stunlock potential with her and Deathlock/4*vulture. Too bad SMBiB hasn’t been reworked otherwise they would actually synergies well. SM’s damage is incredibly outdated.

Seph1roth5

too many acronyms.

ArchusMonk

@LavaManLee said:

@superwaxley said:

@Scofie said:
To avoid power creep with every single release, you have to put in something that isn't great every now and again. Some releases are always going to be mid-tier or just "usable in the right circumstances".

My "4*s I don't use unless essential" list is currently however many 4s there are minus 3. Any new 4s are very likely to go on the pile, unless they have a fun new usable power or can go winfinite, in which case I'll play them a few times for fun.

At this point, they could release a 4* cheese sandwich (that feeds Venomsaurus), and we'd roster it. But nobody is spending tons of cash to get it.

Hey Scofie, which 4*'s are your 'minus 3'?

I'm not Scofie but will guess. Polaris. Grocket. Karnak. Might throw a Juggernaut and/or Thanos in there also.

For daily PVE use, it would be Juggernaut, R4G, and Gorr.

bbigler

I thought I would add a level headed comment here.
1. The game exists to make money BUT you have to keep your customers happy to get them to spend their money. Since the game is free to play, they have to have incentives for spending. So look at all sales that way.
2. If the devs start doing things that the players don’t like then they will lose some players and thus revenue. So, it’s in their interest to listen to the players. Why do you think we have surveys?
3. Trial and error is a part of building a business, trying to figure out what works and what doesn’t. So, some deals are bad and some are good. Some characters are bad and some are good. Keep in mind that you also have different types of players out there.
4. If the devs wanted to do a “cash grab” they would offer increasingly better deals until the offers appear too good to be true, making people fear the game is ending. Like a going out of business sale.
5. Businesses do ruthlessly try to make as much money as possible, but if their customers don’t like their practices then they lose them, so it’s a balance between profits and gaining/retaining customers. That’s why companies really care about their public image and generally try to keep their customers happy.