@Tony_Foot said: I don't know why you would want to go after soft cappers
@Tony_Foot said:
I don't know why you would want to go after soft cappers
I don't think it's something the game should incentivise as a strategy - it's the equivalent of dropping back a year at school and bullying the littler kids.
(As always, berate the game, not the player, if you are having fun doing this, more power to you, but don't expect much sympathy if someone else exploits the game mechanisms and you end up with the filthy end of the stick for a change)
Why in hell would I now want to get a 550 or three and end up in sheer hell.
Why would you ever have? I don't see it as much different to the current state of affairs - the people at the top have the resources to stomp on anyone daring to trespass in their demesne.
Let's say the meta becomes 550 Big Wheel, 550 (4) Puck 550 (4) Winter Soldier. There's nothing a 9 year player like me can do to join that meta in any meaningful way.
Yes, same. But how many players could? None that I can currently compete with.
I think even the top of the game where people hoarding for years rather than spending will get annoyed with this level of gatekeeping.
Sorry, I don't get the problem - you acquire and spend resources, you have the things.
Within the grubby capitalist mechanics of the game I don't see any added unfairness from this.
The roster slot pressure has been increasing since BCS took over so it isn't a complete surprise that this is what is driving this. The surprising thing for me is that they have designed a system that penalises new players in this way, many of whom might not even understand that the elevation bit is optional (although clearly desirable for early players to keep their max covered 1* useful beyond Prologue).
Every new thing seems to just make the richer much richer. I also don't really see that it addresses 4* dilution unless greater access to the legacy 4* is provided beyond the once per month maybe Classic boost.
@Tony_Foot said: I'm hoping (wishful thinking) that they increase token drops for 4* somehow. Better odds on mighty tokens or something to slightly speed up my 4* progression to allow me to play this game where I take 4* to 5*. I play a lot and currently with dilution getting more of a problem in the 4* tier think I'm still 2 years from taking a dupe to 370. I won't take up a 370 and a 270 because I need every feeder cover I can get. Plus I want to double dip rewards.
I think they are going to have to touch the drop economy.... but I think they will do it slowly.
I also think they are probably going to revisit slot cost again and also ISO drop rate as a result. You are going to really need more iso in that low 5* band as a result (not everyone is post iso).
Not sure how I feel about this yet, will let it play out. It is obviously a way of extending the game (and keeping the cash flowing), but as a longtime player (am 12th on the Steamladder for worldwide play time) who is a bit of a completionist, and curses every time a new char is released, as I only needed one more for a full set, and now back up to two lol. Plus, I like to have a "wide depth" roster and so only have 1 Championed 5 star as I concentrated (and still am) on raising other 5 stars to max. This new system does favour those who only want to build a tight roster of powerful characters and for me (who already struggles in PVP) I can only see things in the PVP space getting worse, but have to admit, will still almost certainly keep playing
My alliance was discussing if the ascend would be better suited as a SUPPORT option using red iso instead?
@DAZ0273 said: Every new thing seems to just make the richer much richer.
Not so much the rich richer, but the richest untouchable.
It's probably best to view it as a piece of satire or a solid preparation for life.
@trewiltrewil said: @Tony_Foot said: I'm hoping (wishful thinking) that they increase token drops for 4* somehow. Better odds on mighty tokens or something to slightly speed up my 4* progression to allow me to play this game where I take 4* to 5*. I play a lot and currently with dilution getting more of a problem in the 4* tier think I'm still 2 years from taking a dupe to 370. I won't take up a 370 and a 270 because I need every feeder cover I can get. Plus I want to double dip rewards. I think they are going to have to touch the drop economy.... but I think they will do it slowly. I also think they are probably going to revisit slot cost again and also ISO drop rate as a result. You are going to really need more iso in that low 5* band as a result (not everyone is post iso) and the idea of farms does kind of go away (I don't think most player are going to choose to farm over ascend).
@trewiltrewil said:
I also think they are probably going to revisit slot cost again and also ISO drop rate as a result. You are going to really need more iso in that low 5* band as a result (not everyone is post iso) and the idea of farms does kind of go away (I don't think most player are going to choose to farm over ascend).
I'm excited though, because it means the game on net gives you more choices on how to spend resources, it's not just "grind LTs for the next 5".... now it's "grind LTs for the next 5 and use extra resources to do things you want to do".
@Crowl said: @entrailbucket said: @BlackBoltRocks said: They could reduce the cost of roster slots further. Or they could, you know, make roster slots gasp free! There's no other game that penalises players for adding to their rosters like MPQ. I don't get penalised for catching as many Pokemon as I can in Arceus or Violet. They'd have to find some other way to make money. They could probably do this if they didn't have to pay Marvel for the license, but I don't think the game would be as popular without these characters. Outside of very early on, will that many people actually be spending money to get roster slots though or it it more likely that they earn enough to keep up with demand HP or are forced to sell covers when they can't do so. It seems more likely that those spending real money are doing so for offers/vaults that appeal to them and all that reducing/removing roster costs would do would be to encourage more regular spending elsewhere since they would no longer need to hoard a certain amount to ensure they had enough for their next batch of roster slots.
@Crowl said:
@entrailbucket said: @BlackBoltRocks said: They could reduce the cost of roster slots further. Or they could, you know, make roster slots gasp free! There's no other game that penalises players for adding to their rosters like MPQ. I don't get penalised for catching as many Pokemon as I can in Arceus or Violet. They'd have to find some other way to make money. They could probably do this if they didn't have to pay Marvel for the license, but I don't think the game would be as popular without these characters.
@entrailbucket said:
@BlackBoltRocks said: They could reduce the cost of roster slots further. Or they could, you know, make roster slots gasp free! There's no other game that penalises players for adding to their rosters like MPQ. I don't get penalised for catching as many Pokemon as I can in Arceus or Violet.
@BlackBoltRocks said: They could reduce the cost of roster slots further.
Or they could, you know, make roster slots gasp free! There's no other game that penalises players for adding to their rosters like MPQ. I don't get penalised for catching as many Pokemon as I can in Arceus or Violet.
They'd have to find some other way to make money. They could probably do this if they didn't have to pay Marvel for the license, but I don't think the game would be as popular without these characters.
Outside of very early on, will that many people actually be spending money to get roster slots though or it it more likely that they earn enough to keep up with demand HP or are forced to sell covers when they can't do so. It seems more likely that those spending real money are doing so for offers/vaults that appeal to them and all that reducing/removing roster costs would do would be to encourage more regular spending elsewhere since they would no longer need to hoard a certain amount to ensure they had enough for their next batch of roster slots.
Only 3% of players have a character lvl450 or higher. The VAST majority of players in this game are what you describe as "very early on."
@DAZ0273 said: And it does matter how many dupes you have - that is entirely the point of the new system - don't have a dupe and want to ascend a character - buy a slot. This is all about slots - they could have easily implemented this without any need to have duplicates of the same character but they didn't. It is not hard to understand the path they chose of course and Devs gotta get that gold but it is a bit transparently obvious what this is looking to do. Nothing I can do but either suck it up or get killed by 4* Ares so it is what it is. Simples.
Unless you want to ascend a WHOLE bunch of characters in parallel, you won't need to buy a lot of slots.
For example lets say you want to Ascend 3* Iron Man. You buy 1 more slot and get 13 covers then ascend him to 4* level. At that point you free up a slot which you can then use to ascend say 3* Scarlet Witch. Once you get 13 covers of her, you ascend and move on to the next 3*.
The only time you'll need more than 1 more slot is when ascending multiple characters at a time (or if you ever wanted to take that 3* Iron man to 5* level in which case you will eventually need 2 maxed 4* versions of him but again, once he hits 5*, that 2nd max 4 slot frees up).
KGB
@entrailbucket said: @Crowl said: @entrailbucket said: @BlackBoltRocks said: They could reduce the cost of roster slots further. Or they could, you know, make roster slots gasp free! There's no other game that penalises players for adding to their rosters like MPQ. I don't get penalised for catching as many Pokemon as I can in Arceus or Violet. They'd have to find some other way to make money. They could probably do this if they didn't have to pay Marvel for the license, but I don't think the game would be as popular without these characters. Outside of very early on, will that many people actually be spending money to get roster slots though or it it more likely that they earn enough to keep up with demand HP or are forced to sell covers when they can't do so. It seems more likely that those spending real money are doing so for offers/vaults that appeal to them and all that reducing/removing roster costs would do would be to encourage more regular spending elsewhere since they would no longer need to hoard a certain amount to ensure they had enough for their next batch of roster slots. Only 3% of players have a character lvl450 or higher. The VAST majority of players in this game are what you describe as "very early on."
You'll roll this statistic out for the next 12 years, won't you.
It should qualified though that we don't know the total amount of players that the 3% applies to. If it is 1 million total players, then 30,000 of them have a 450...
@DAZ0273 said: It should qualified though that we don't know the total amount of players that the 3% applies to. If it is 1 million total players, then 30,000 of them have a 450...
Don't bring reason into his statistic! Then you'd have to include non-casual players too, according to BCS' definition, and Bucket's 3% unravels at the seams.
@Bowgentle said: @entrailbucket said: @Crowl said: @entrailbucket said: @BlackBoltRocks said: They could reduce the cost of roster slots further. Or they could, you know, make roster slots gasp free! There's no other game that penalises players for adding to their rosters like MPQ. I don't get penalised for catching as many Pokemon as I can in Arceus or Violet. They'd have to find some other way to make money. They could probably do this if they didn't have to pay Marvel for the license, but I don't think the game would be as popular without these characters. Outside of very early on, will that many people actually be spending money to get roster slots though or it it more likely that they earn enough to keep up with demand HP or are forced to sell covers when they can't do so. It seems more likely that those spending real money are doing so for offers/vaults that appeal to them and all that reducing/removing roster costs would do would be to encourage more regular spending elsewhere since they would no longer need to hoard a certain amount to ensure they had enough for their next batch of roster slots. Only 3% of players have a character lvl450 or higher. The VAST majority of players in this game are what you describe as "very early on." You'll roll this statistic out for the next 12 years, won't you.
@Bowgentle said:
It's SO useful though! The game does such a good job of hiding everyone from us (and hiding us from everyone) that people seriously think the entire playerbase is composed of us.
@KGB said: @DAZ0273 said: And it does matter how many dupes you have - that is entirely the point of the new system - don't have a dupe and want to ascend a character - buy a slot. This is all about slots - they could have easily implemented this without any need to have duplicates of the same character but they didn't. It is not hard to understand the path they chose of course and Devs gotta get that gold but it is a bit transparently obvious what this is looking to do. Nothing I can do but either suck it up or get killed by 4* Ares so it is what it is. Simples. Unless you want to ascend a WHOLE bunch of characters in parallel, you won't need to buy a lot of slots. For example lets say you want to Ascend 3* Iron Man. You buy 1 more slot and get 13 covers then ascend him to 4* level. At that point you free up a slot which you can then use to ascend say 3* Scarlet Witch. Once you get 13 covers of her, you ascend and move on to the next 3*. The only time you'll need more than 1 more slot is when ascending multiple characters at a time (or if you ever wanted to take that 3* Iron man to 5* level in which case you will eventually need 2 maxed 4* versions of him but again, once he hits 5*, that 2nd max 4 slot frees up). KGB
@KGB said:
I think I read somewhere that you'll need something like 8 slots in total to get to 5* tier from 1*? Dunno. It is overly complicated and I will wait and see in practice if I decide to monkey around with it. It isn't something that is going to be bothering me come launch day, lol!
The point is I don't think the game needed to go this route. I completely understand why it is doing it but I don't have to like it.
The specific number doesn't matter as much as the general direction. We are a tiny minority, that's what matters.
@entrailbucket said: @Bowgentle said: @entrailbucket said: @Crowl said: @entrailbucket said: @BlackBoltRocks said: They could reduce the cost of roster slots further. Or they could, you know, make roster slots gasp free! There's no other game that penalises players for adding to their rosters like MPQ. I don't get penalised for catching as many Pokemon as I can in Arceus or Violet. They'd have to find some other way to make money. They could probably do this if they didn't have to pay Marvel for the license, but I don't think the game would be as popular without these characters. Outside of very early on, will that many people actually be spending money to get roster slots though or it it more likely that they earn enough to keep up with demand HP or are forced to sell covers when they can't do so. It seems more likely that those spending real money are doing so for offers/vaults that appeal to them and all that reducing/removing roster costs would do would be to encourage more regular spending elsewhere since they would no longer need to hoard a certain amount to ensure they had enough for their next batch of roster slots. Only 3% of players have a character lvl450 or higher. The VAST majority of players in this game are what you describe as "very early on." You'll roll this statistic out for the next 12 years, won't you. It's SO useful though! The game does such a good job of hiding everyone from us (and hiding us from everyone) that people seriously think the entire playerbase is composed of us.
All 30,000 of you!
But the 3% is misleading. It's, what was it, 10% of the people who stick around for more than 60 days? That's a much more significant number I think.
@DAZ0273 said: @KGB said: @DAZ0273 said: And it does matter how many dupes you have - that is entirely the point of the new system - don't have a dupe and want to ascend a character - buy a slot. This is all about slots - they could have easily implemented this without any need to have duplicates of the same character but they didn't. It is not hard to understand the path they chose of course and Devs gotta get that gold but it is a bit transparently obvious what this is looking to do. Nothing I can do but either suck it up or get killed by 4* Ares so it is what it is. Simples. Unless you want to ascend a WHOLE bunch of characters in parallel, you won't need to buy a lot of slots. For example lets say you want to Ascend 3* Iron Man. You buy 1 more slot and get 13 covers then ascend him to 4* level. At that point you free up a slot which you can then use to ascend say 3* Scarlet Witch. Once you get 13 covers of her, you ascend and move on to the next 3*. The only time you'll need more than 1 more slot is when ascending multiple characters at a time (or if you ever wanted to take that 3* Iron man to 5* level in which case you will eventually need 2 maxed 4* versions of him but again, once he hits 5*, that 2nd max 4 slot frees up). KGB I think I read somewhere that you'll need something like 8 slots in total to get to 5* tier from 1*? Dunno. It is overly complicated and I will wait and see in practice if I decide to monkey around with it. It isn't something that is going to be bothering me come launch day, lol! The point is I don't think the game needed to go this route. I completely understand why it is doing it but I don't have to like it.
@DAZ0273 said:
I think all of us are spending WAY too much time worrying about taking 1* and 2* to 550, and not nearly enough time thinking about what 550 Polaris or America Chavez will look like. Those guys are significantly more achievable and (probably) significantly more useful.
@Bowgentle said: @entrailbucket said: @Bowgentle said: @entrailbucket said: @Crowl said: @entrailbucket said: @BlackBoltRocks said: They could reduce the cost of roster slots further. Or they could, you know, make roster slots gasp free! There's no other game that penalises players for adding to their rosters like MPQ. I don't get penalised for catching as many Pokemon as I can in Arceus or Violet. They'd have to find some other way to make money. They could probably do this if they didn't have to pay Marvel for the license, but I don't think the game would be as popular without these characters. Outside of very early on, will that many people actually be spending money to get roster slots though or it it more likely that they earn enough to keep up with demand HP or are forced to sell covers when they can't do so. It seems more likely that those spending real money are doing so for offers/vaults that appeal to them and all that reducing/removing roster costs would do would be to encourage more regular spending elsewhere since they would no longer need to hoard a certain amount to ensure they had enough for their next batch of roster slots. Only 3% of players have a character lvl450 or higher. The VAST majority of players in this game are what you describe as "very early on." You'll roll this statistic out for the next 12 years, won't you. It's SO useful though! The game does such a good job of hiding everyone from us (and hiding us from everyone) that people seriously think the entire playerbase is composed of us. But the 3% is misleading. It's, what was it, 10% of the people who stick around for more than 60 days? That's a much more significant number I think.
It's still a minority. The one guy who was fighting with me on here months ago said it was like 80%!
@entrailbucket said: @DAZ0273 said: It should qualified though that we don't know the total amount of players that the 3% applies to. If it is 1 million total players, then 30,000 of them have a 450... The specific number doesn't matter as much as the general direction. We are a tiny minority, that's what matters.
Dude - 30,000 players is not an insignificant amount of people! Unfortunately without context that 3% can be really small, actually quite large or anywhere in-between.