Again, I'm totally fine with the concept but there needs to be a flat reward given to the player on binding that would make it a viable choice compared to the resources that will be lost by comparison.
Binding a character, at the very least, should give you the rewards you would have recieved for selling that same character.
@Crowl said: What a horribly convoluted way to try and sell more roster slots. If you actually wanted to let people use their favourites at all levels, you should have set it up so a 1* ascended to 5* could actually be used at any of the 5 tiers as needed and would just be treated as a max champion on the lower tiers without you needing to have multiple versions of the same champion outside of those needed for binding. Even before you get started, you'd need 3 lots of a champion before you'd want to ascend, one to ascend, one to bind and one to be used at the original rank. Such a horrible system, that ironically would have actually worked quite well for the horribly neglected supports since you can only use one of those at a time.
@Crowl said: What a horribly convoluted way to try and sell more roster slots.
If you actually wanted to let people use their favourites at all levels, you should have set it up so a 1* ascended to 5* could actually be used at any of the 5 tiers as needed and would just be treated as a max champion on the lower tiers without you needing to have multiple versions of the same champion outside of those needed for binding.
Even before you get started, you'd need 3 lots of a champion before you'd want to ascend, one to ascend, one to bind and one to be used at the original rank.
Such a horrible system, that ironically would have actually worked quite well for the horribly neglected supports since you can only use one of those at a time.
Really well said. There will be many uniformed players make the mistake of ascending a 2 or 3 star then get messed over when it is a required character, I’d bet. If I am understanding this system correctly
Some seem to think it won't be worth it, but you could just not ascend characters and continue as you were.
Making exceptions for any character that becomes meta.
@jsmjsmjsm00 said: I like the idea but the math makes it a terrible deal to ever bind your characters. The above analysis (I think) also leaves out the rewards from selling the maxed character too, which you lose on binding.
@jsmjsmjsm00 said: I like the idea but the math makes it a terrible deal to ever bind your characters.
The above analysis (I think) also leaves out the rewards from selling the maxed character too, which you lose on binding.
Yeah - I kept it simple and just did champ rewards. There's obvs more to it, but at first blush you lose a lot as an ascended 4* given the 4:1 ratio needed per level.
Now this assumes you only look as your lower * characters as a rewards farm and not as a viable character, there may be reason to ascend the odd lower meta character.
Similar champ rewards compare on a 3* and 2*. I think 3* you can get more CP and HP as a 5* - so may be worth it. A 2* you do see an uptick as they provide no LT and very little CP so as a 5* perhaps start to "payoff"
Definitely feels like starting out with 1*s is going to be the move as a test. There are less of them and they have no champ status normally.
@Blackstone said: Some seem to think it won't be worth it, but you could just not ascend characters and continue as you were. Making exceptions for any character that becomes meta.
@Blackstone said: Some seem to think it won't be worth it, but you could just not ascend characters and continue as you were.
This is my view - I will wait and see how a 475 Polaris starts to play, but not sure what others will have an impact. I've played in the boosted 5* as meta for a while now so 4* s get champed and forgotten. There's enough variety and too many characters at the 5* level already, i probably don't need a 4* as 5*, and certainly don't need 70+ dupes flipped on day 1.
Ascending seems at best convoluted and at worst a rewards suck with limited gameplay impact. Much easier just to ignore and carry on business as usual, except I'll start ascending 1*s
Hard to tell how all of the math will fully play out, but it does seem like rough design at best to force you to hold those characters in individual slots.
@IceIX is there any chance that in the future there could be a change to how these characters are stored? Taking extra slots is extremely coin expensive and also makes navigating your characters in the UI less functional.
@JHawkInc said: This is completely bonkers and I am here for it. One note though. If you have a 266 Doctor Strange and a 166 Doctor Strange and 100 covers, won’t you get more rewards from leveling the 166 to 266 and then Binding them, as opposed to Ascending to 4-Star and applying the covers afterwards? So the longer you put it off, the more overall rewards you’ll get?
@JHawkInc said: This is completely bonkers and I am here for it.
One note though. If you have a 266 Doctor Strange and a 166 Doctor Strange and 100 covers, won’t you get more rewards from leveling the 166 to 266 and then Binding them, as opposed to Ascending to 4-Star and applying the covers afterwards? So the longer you put it off, the more overall rewards you’ll get?
I think this is the single most important point that was brought up.
Maybe the double-max bind is the way to go, then start new base level copies. So 2x Max 4* to get the best rewards, bind to create 475 (which I think gets you 25 champ rewards), plays reasonably well with lower level 5*s and usable when boosted.
Then start a brand new 4*, don't waste burning 4* covers at 4:1 on the ascended version.
Similar for 3* and 2*. Bind Max and leave. Your binding frees up a roster spot, but you lose ISO from not selling the max champ.
@GrimSkald said: @IceIX said: @GrimSkald said: I have a question - how will retroactive rewards be handled? For example, I have two 370 America Chavez. If I bind the two of them, that will get me a 475 America Chavez. Let's say down the line an actual 5* America Chavez is released -- will I get 6 retro covers (because my America Chavez is technically just 475 which has passed by those 6 covers on America Chavez,) or will I get 12 retro covers (since I could have theoretically gotten the two sets if I kept them separate?) I have a feeling it's going to be the former, but woof, that's a non-trivial number of covers. No. A 4-Star Chavez will get 5 star Retro rewards since that’s what their Champ Reward schedule is. A 5-Star Chavez has it’s own schedule of rewards, so it wouldn’t count for those. Right, but only one? If I kept them separate, then I could have theoretically gotten more...
@GrimSkald said:
@IceIX said: @GrimSkald said: I have a question - how will retroactive rewards be handled? For example, I have two 370 America Chavez. If I bind the two of them, that will get me a 475 America Chavez. Let's say down the line an actual 5* America Chavez is released -- will I get 6 retro covers (because my America Chavez is technically just 475 which has passed by those 6 covers on America Chavez,) or will I get 12 retro covers (since I could have theoretically gotten the two sets if I kept them separate?) I have a feeling it's going to be the former, but woof, that's a non-trivial number of covers. No. A 4-Star Chavez will get 5 star Retro rewards since that’s what their Champ Reward schedule is. A 5-Star Chavez has it’s own schedule of rewards, so it wouldn’t count for those.
@IceIX said:
@GrimSkald said: I have a question - how will retroactive rewards be handled? For example, I have two 370 America Chavez. If I bind the two of them, that will get me a 475 America Chavez. Let's say down the line an actual 5* America Chavez is released -- will I get 6 retro covers (because my America Chavez is technically just 475 which has passed by those 6 covers on America Chavez,) or will I get 12 retro covers (since I could have theoretically gotten the two sets if I kept them separate?) I have a feeling it's going to be the former, but woof, that's a non-trivial number of covers.
@GrimSkald said: I have a question - how will retroactive rewards be handled? For example, I have two 370 America Chavez. If I bind the two of them, that will get me a 475 America Chavez. Let's say down the line an actual 5* America Chavez is released -- will I get 6 retro covers (because my America Chavez is technically just 475 which has passed by those 6 covers on America Chavez,) or will I get 12 retro covers (since I could have theoretically gotten the two sets if I kept them separate?)
I have a feeling it's going to be the former, but woof, that's a non-trivial number of covers.
No. A 4-Star Chavez will get 5 star Retro rewards since that’s what their Champ Reward schedule is. A 5-Star Chavez has it’s own schedule of rewards, so it wouldn’t count for those.
Right, but only one? If I kept them separate, then I could have theoretically gotten more...
I think I muddled the issue by picking someone who is already a feeder and now I'm very, very confused by @IceIX 's answer. Let's say I have two ... Northstars at 370. I bind them together and ascend to make a 475 Northstar. Sometime down the line, say, Vindicator is introduced to the game and Northstar is her 4* feeder and my Northstar is still 475. They give retroactive rewards. Do I get:
The second is a bit of an ouch, but makes sense. The last **really **sucks, and potentially is a big drawback of this system.
I would expect it to be option 2, since that is not unlike what happened to people who had sold off max-champ 4* characters before a retro feeder went live, and only got what was then-current. But there is a world where it's the 3rd option, and that would feel pretty bad.
@Punter1 said: Maybe the double-max bind is the way to go, then start new base level copies. So 2x Max 4* to get the best rewards, bind to create 475 (which I think gets you 25 champ rewards), plays reasonably well with lower level 5*s and usable when boosted. Then start a brand new 4*, don't waste burning 4* covers at 4:1 on the ascended version. Similar for 3* and 2*. Bind Max and leave. Your binding frees up a roster spot, but you lose ISO from not selling the max champ.
@Punter1 said: Maybe the double-max bind is the way to go, then start new base level copies. So 2x Max 4* to get the best rewards, bind to create 475 (which I think gets you 25 champ rewards), plays reasonably well with lower level 5*s and usable when boosted.
Double max bind is 100% the best path forward if fully capitalizing on rewards is your goal. It really comes down to speed vs rewards.
Looking forward to using level 550 Juggernaut classic in DDQ "That Guy from That Place".
Oh this sounds like it's saying an Ascended character gets nothing if the lower tier version gets a reward adjustment...
@ThaRoadWarrior said: We going to run Balance of Power one last time as a test to see if this is as fun as we think?
Wouldn't really help. A 1-Star 550 Juggernaut is not the same as a 1Juggernaut5. The ability multipliers on each ability, along with match damage are very different.> @helix72 said:
Two questions: 1) Will any ascended toons be feeders? For example, will a 3* that is ascended to a 4* offer any champ rewards for 5* shards or covers? Or are the awards all non-character based (e.g., ISO, HP, LTs, etc)? 2) Are the ascended champ rewards adjusted for the extra covers required? For example, if I ascend a 4* to 5*, will one champ reward for that ascended character be roughly equivalent to 4 champ rewards for an un-ascended 4*? Or am I forfeiting 75% of the champ level rewards to keep leveling them?
1) Probably not, but we could do that in theory if we wanted to. Not in current plans. 2) No. You trade character power for rewards. You'll be getting the rewards that are standard on the track for that rarity. IE, leveling America Chavez from 450-451 will get you the normal 5-Star 451 reward, which is a Legendary Token.
I want to say that I love this !! Why? Because I can quickly ascend 1s and 2s to the 3* rarity and get 3* champ rewards using their covers. It makes farming even more productive and getting those lower level covers will no longer feel like an empty reward.
If I'm understanding the rewards math, you're punting a lot of champ rewards binding anything other than two maxes? Well, that stinks.
Could never get the gif thing to work but you know the lumberjack one where he turns and smiles and nods with respect. That one
TL:DR all the comments.
What's the estimate of launching this?
@GrimSkald said: @GrimSkald said: @IceIX said: @GrimSkald said: I have a question - how will retroactive rewards be handled? For example, I have two 370 America Chavez. If I bind the two of them, that will get me a 475 America Chavez. Let's say down the line an actual 5* America Chavez is released -- will I get 6 retro covers (because my America Chavez is technically just 475 which has passed by those 6 covers on America Chavez,) or will I get 12 retro covers (since I could have theoretically gotten the two sets if I kept them separate?) I have a feeling it's going to be the former, but woof, that's a non-trivial number of covers. No. A 4-Star Chavez will get 5 star Retro rewards since that’s what their Champ Reward schedule is. A 5-Star Chavez has it’s own schedule of rewards, so it wouldn’t count for those. Right, but only one? If I kept them separate, then I could have theoretically gotten more... I think I muddled the issue by picking someone who is already a feeder and now I'm very, very confused by @IceIX 's answer. Let's say I have two ... Northstars at 370. I bind them together and ascend to make a 475 Northstar. Sometime down the line, say, Vindicator is introduced to the game and Northstar is her 4* feeder and my Northstar is still 475. They give retroactive rewards. Do I get: 12 covers, because a 5* Northstar + 25 levels equals two full Northstars 6 covers, because I "expended" the extra Northstar to ascend and level the one, and now I just have one Northstar who are past those levels 0 covers, because I no longer have a 4* Northstar at all and my 5* Northstar doesn't count. The second is a bit of an ouch, but makes sense. The last **really **sucks, and potentially is a big drawback of this system.
I believe he is saying it is 0. And this is a huge negative.