@meadowsweet said: @entrailbucket said: The amount of rewards you gain or lose by either method is so insignificant in the grand scheme that I can't imagine caring about it either way. Personally I have no interest in waiting till tomorrow for anything, I want to play the game and I'm going to forgo future considerations to get the highest level roster I can get right now. I think you and I are on the same page. TL;DR: if you prefer to have your 1★ & 2★ characters be 80 to 180 Levels higher and into the 5★ tier than a 4★ Max Champ at Level 370 for the duration of time it takes you to collect 500 covers for that character, you should Max-Min Ascend your 1★ & 2★ characters: How to read this chart: Let's just focus on the yellow lines (actually a series of yellow dots): 1. Starting at 126 covers, Max-Min Ascends to 4★ Level 270 while Max-Max's highest character remains at 3★ Level 266. 2. The difference in top character Levels grows from 4 Levels at 126 covers to 37 Levels at 225 covers. 3. At 226 covers, Max-Max Ascends, gets credit for the additional Levels, and both characters are at Level 303, or a difference of zero. 4. But at 552 covers, Max-Min Ascends again to 5★ Level 450, an 80 Level difference from Max-Max's Level 370 character. 5. The gap widens again, as Max-Min is Leveling up their 5★ while Max-Max is building up its 4★ Max Champ duplicate. The gap reaches its widest at 851 covers (Max-Min Level 524, Max-Max still Level 370.) 6. At 852 covers Max-Max Ascends its two 4★ Level 370 characters to a 5★ Level 475 character, narrowing the gap to 50 Levels. 7. The gap remains 50 Levels (both Max-Min & Max-Max earning 1 Level every 4 covers) until Max-Min reaches 5★ Max Champ Level 550 at 952 total covers. 8. From there, Max-Max begins narrowing the gap in Levels until reaching Level 550 for themselves 200 covers later at 1,152 total covers.
@meadowsweet said:
@entrailbucket said: The amount of rewards you gain or lose by either method is so insignificant in the grand scheme that I can't imagine caring about it either way. Personally I have no interest in waiting till tomorrow for anything, I want to play the game and I'm going to forgo future considerations to get the highest level roster I can get right now.
@entrailbucket said: The amount of rewards you gain or lose by either method is so insignificant in the grand scheme that I can't imagine caring about it either way.
Personally I have no interest in waiting till tomorrow for anything, I want to play the game and I'm going to forgo future considerations to get the highest level roster I can get right now.
I think you and I are on the same page.
TL;DR: if you prefer to have your 1★ & 2★ characters be 80 to 180 Levels higher and into the 5★ tier than a 4★ Max Champ at Level 370 for the duration of time it takes you to collect 500 covers for that character, you should Max-Min Ascend your 1★ & 2★ characters:
How to read this chart:
Let's just focus on the yellow lines (actually a series of yellow dots): 1. Starting at 126 covers, Max-Min Ascends to 4★ Level 270 while Max-Max's highest character remains at 3★ Level 266. 2. The difference in top character Levels grows from 4 Levels at 126 covers to 37 Levels at 225 covers. 3. At 226 covers, Max-Max Ascends, gets credit for the additional Levels, and both characters are at Level 303, or a difference of zero. 4. But at 552 covers, Max-Min Ascends again to 5★ Level 450, an 80 Level difference from Max-Max's Level 370 character. 5. The gap widens again, as Max-Min is Leveling up their 5★ while Max-Max is building up its 4★ Max Champ duplicate. The gap reaches its widest at 851 covers (Max-Min Level 524, Max-Max still Level 370.) 6. At 852 covers Max-Max Ascends its two 4★ Level 370 characters to a 5★ Level 475 character, narrowing the gap to 50 Levels. 7. The gap remains 50 Levels (both Max-Min & Max-Max earning 1 Level every 4 covers) until Max-Min reaches 5★ Max Champ Level 550 at 952 total covers. 8. From there, Max-Max begins narrowing the gap in Levels until reaching Level 550 for themselves 200 covers later at 1,152 total covers.
Occasionally it helps to remember that the game has an absolute ceiling in levels. This might change, I guess, someday in the future.
But once you get there there's nowhere to go, no gain in power after that. Just different flavors and power sets.
If your goal is power, getting there first/fastest is best.
The delay for rewards is most convincing in a game with power creep, which the devs have over and over said they are not interested in creating. (However, the ascended characters themselves, to me, represent power creep over many or most naturals in the tier.) Without power creep, the argument for maximizing rewards per cover becomes less persuasive. Since High Ev and Omega, I have not seen a single 5 that seems essential for competing in the game, although some are useful in certain situations and many are fine.
@GrimSkald said: @meadowsweet said: @JoeHandle said: For instance, I see this "max base tier, then max-min, then 5* " asserted as 'best' often, in many places, from many people. but ... uhhh ... it don't make no sense (to me?). What's the focus? What's the rationale? Most approaches are focused either on performance (increasing utility (read: level) of the character as fast as possible), or resource(s) (how can I max the return of resource(s) while ascending [characters] ? ). But this advice is at odds with itself if it's focused on performance or resources ... is it something else? Or a not so great attempt to split the difference? Option 1: Max-Min Pros: Your characters get to highest levels most quickly and will hit 450 & 550 as soon as possible, which may help you compete in required PVP & PVE nodes. You require the fewest roster slots for the least amount of time. Cons: You are not advancing half of your characters through the Champ rewards. You are paying more in Iso to upgrade characters (because of missed Champ rewards.) Option 2: Max-Max Pros: You receive every Champ reward possible at every tier. Cons: Your characters will reach 5★, Levels 450 - 550 more slowly (perhaps putting you at a disadvantage against someone else's boosted 550 in required nodes.) At times you will require dozens if not hundreds of roster slots just to maintain all of your Max-Max duplicates who each need hundreds of covers depending on the tiers involved. Option 3: Max-Max at base level, Max-Min above base level If the total number of covers were equivalent to get to 550, you could just ask players what they prefer: more powerful characters sooner, or more total rewards overall? But my opinion / conspiracy theory is that the devs screwed up the Ascension math, realized too late, refuse to ever explain the rationale why Max-Max takes more covers to get to Level 550 than Max-Min, and just moved on. The thing is, the Max-Max "cover tax / penalty" doesn't apply to the Tier that characters start out at, only the higher levels. So for example, regardless of which path you use for the base level, you'll end up at: 26x 1★ covers = Ascended 2★, Level 94 126x 2★ covers = Ascended 3★, Level 191 226x 3★ covers = Ascended 4★, Level 303 226x 4★ covers = Ascended 5★, Level 475 But it's at the steps beyond that where the math gets more complicated - because of the "tax penalty." For instance, an Ascended 1★ character at the 3★ level now requires 2 covers per level (200 total to Max.) That's 200 covers that the Min route isn't spending. Times two because in all you'll need two primary and two secondary at the 3★ to eventually end up with an Ascended 5★. But when you Ascend from 3★ to 4★ they only credit you for 100 levels divided by 3 covers per level at the 4★ tier, or 33+1/3 levels as a 4★, when they should credit you for 200 covers / 3 covers per level = 66+2/3 levels as a 4★ (the exchange rate the Max-Min player is getting for their covers.) All of which is a long way of saying the compromise strategy is "Max-Max at their starting tier, where the exchange rate is the same as Max-Min. Use Max-Min at the tiers above that, where the exchange rate is better for Max-Min." Not only will your characters get to Levels 450 & 550 faster and you'll pay no "tax penalty", but you're also getting better rewards faster (albeit while giving up some lower-level rewards.) Everyone talks about the downside of the Max-Min player missing out on 100 levels of Champ rewards with their duplicates, but not as many people talk about the Max-Min players zipping through larger, higher-level Champ rewards faster, or the fact that the Max-Max player "sacrificed" 33.3 levels of 4★ Champ reward progress in "tax penalties" (as seen in the math above) while they were "investing in" 100 levels of 3★ Champ rewards, which is a genuine trade-off. It's created this seriously weird aspect of the economy that lower level covers can actually be more valuable to you than higher level ones. My 1★s are, for the most part, higher level than my 2★s -- I'm actually disappointed when I pull a 2★ out of a standard token - it will be 3:1 either way and for the most part my 1★s are better. This will only get more exaggerated as I level these guys. Of course, higher tier characters tend to be more powerful and versatile, so that kind of balances out, but like I said, it's weird. I'm sure I'll hit a point where I'm annoyed at pulling too many 3★s from Heroic and Elite tokens...
@GrimSkald said:
@meadowsweet said: @JoeHandle said: For instance, I see this "max base tier, then max-min, then 5* " asserted as 'best' often, in many places, from many people. but ... uhhh ... it don't make no sense (to me?). What's the focus? What's the rationale? Most approaches are focused either on performance (increasing utility (read: level) of the character as fast as possible), or resource(s) (how can I max the return of resource(s) while ascending [characters] ? ). But this advice is at odds with itself if it's focused on performance or resources ... is it something else? Or a not so great attempt to split the difference? Option 1: Max-Min Pros: Your characters get to highest levels most quickly and will hit 450 & 550 as soon as possible, which may help you compete in required PVP & PVE nodes. You require the fewest roster slots for the least amount of time. Cons: You are not advancing half of your characters through the Champ rewards. You are paying more in Iso to upgrade characters (because of missed Champ rewards.) Option 2: Max-Max Pros: You receive every Champ reward possible at every tier. Cons: Your characters will reach 5★, Levels 450 - 550 more slowly (perhaps putting you at a disadvantage against someone else's boosted 550 in required nodes.) At times you will require dozens if not hundreds of roster slots just to maintain all of your Max-Max duplicates who each need hundreds of covers depending on the tiers involved. Option 3: Max-Max at base level, Max-Min above base level If the total number of covers were equivalent to get to 550, you could just ask players what they prefer: more powerful characters sooner, or more total rewards overall? But my opinion / conspiracy theory is that the devs screwed up the Ascension math, realized too late, refuse to ever explain the rationale why Max-Max takes more covers to get to Level 550 than Max-Min, and just moved on. The thing is, the Max-Max "cover tax / penalty" doesn't apply to the Tier that characters start out at, only the higher levels. So for example, regardless of which path you use for the base level, you'll end up at: 26x 1★ covers = Ascended 2★, Level 94 126x 2★ covers = Ascended 3★, Level 191 226x 3★ covers = Ascended 4★, Level 303 226x 4★ covers = Ascended 5★, Level 475 But it's at the steps beyond that where the math gets more complicated - because of the "tax penalty." For instance, an Ascended 1★ character at the 3★ level now requires 2 covers per level (200 total to Max.) That's 200 covers that the Min route isn't spending. Times two because in all you'll need two primary and two secondary at the 3★ to eventually end up with an Ascended 5★. But when you Ascend from 3★ to 4★ they only credit you for 100 levels divided by 3 covers per level at the 4★ tier, or 33+1/3 levels as a 4★, when they should credit you for 200 covers / 3 covers per level = 66+2/3 levels as a 4★ (the exchange rate the Max-Min player is getting for their covers.) All of which is a long way of saying the compromise strategy is "Max-Max at their starting tier, where the exchange rate is the same as Max-Min. Use Max-Min at the tiers above that, where the exchange rate is better for Max-Min." Not only will your characters get to Levels 450 & 550 faster and you'll pay no "tax penalty", but you're also getting better rewards faster (albeit while giving up some lower-level rewards.) Everyone talks about the downside of the Max-Min player missing out on 100 levels of Champ rewards with their duplicates, but not as many people talk about the Max-Min players zipping through larger, higher-level Champ rewards faster, or the fact that the Max-Max player "sacrificed" 33.3 levels of 4★ Champ reward progress in "tax penalties" (as seen in the math above) while they were "investing in" 100 levels of 3★ Champ rewards, which is a genuine trade-off.
@JoeHandle said: For instance, I see this "max base tier, then max-min, then 5* " asserted as 'best' often, in many places, from many people. but ... uhhh ... it don't make no sense (to me?). What's the focus? What's the rationale? Most approaches are focused either on performance (increasing utility (read: level) of the character as fast as possible), or resource(s) (how can I max the return of resource(s) while ascending [characters] ? ). But this advice is at odds with itself if it's focused on performance or resources ... is it something else? Or a not so great attempt to split the difference?
@JoeHandle said: For instance, I see this "max base tier, then max-min, then 5* " asserted as 'best' often, in many places, from many people. but ... uhhh ... it don't make no sense (to me?). What's the focus? What's the rationale? Most approaches are focused either on performance (increasing utility (read: level) of the character as fast as possible), or resource(s) (how can I max the return of resource(s) while ascending [characters] ? ).
But this advice is at odds with itself if it's focused on performance or resources ... is it something else? Or a not so great attempt to split the difference?
Option 1: Max-Min Pros: Your characters get to highest levels most quickly and will hit 450 & 550 as soon as possible, which may help you compete in required PVP & PVE nodes. You require the fewest roster slots for the least amount of time. Cons: You are not advancing half of your characters through the Champ rewards. You are paying more in Iso to upgrade characters (because of missed Champ rewards.)
Option 2: Max-Max Pros: You receive every Champ reward possible at every tier. Cons: Your characters will reach 5★, Levels 450 - 550 more slowly (perhaps putting you at a disadvantage against someone else's boosted 550 in required nodes.) At times you will require dozens if not hundreds of roster slots just to maintain all of your Max-Max duplicates who each need hundreds of covers depending on the tiers involved.
Option 3: Max-Max at base level, Max-Min above base level If the total number of covers were equivalent to get to 550, you could just ask players what they prefer: more powerful characters sooner, or more total rewards overall? But my opinion / conspiracy theory is that the devs screwed up the Ascension math, realized too late, refuse to ever explain the rationale why Max-Max takes more covers to get to Level 550 than Max-Min, and just moved on.
The thing is, the Max-Max "cover tax / penalty" doesn't apply to the Tier that characters start out at, only the higher levels. So for example, regardless of which path you use for the base level, you'll end up at: 26x 1★ covers = Ascended 2★, Level 94 126x 2★ covers = Ascended 3★, Level 191 226x 3★ covers = Ascended 4★, Level 303 226x 4★ covers = Ascended 5★, Level 475
But it's at the steps beyond that where the math gets more complicated - because of the "tax penalty." For instance, an Ascended 1★ character at the 3★ level now requires 2 covers per level (200 total to Max.) That's 200 covers that the Min route isn't spending. Times two because in all you'll need two primary and two secondary at the 3★ to eventually end up with an Ascended 5★. But when you Ascend from 3★ to 4★ they only credit you for 100 levels divided by 3 covers per level at the 4★ tier, or 33+1/3 levels as a 4★, when they should credit you for 200 covers / 3 covers per level = 66+2/3 levels as a 4★ (the exchange rate the Max-Min player is getting for their covers.)
All of which is a long way of saying the compromise strategy is "Max-Max at their starting tier, where the exchange rate is the same as Max-Min. Use Max-Min at the tiers above that, where the exchange rate is better for Max-Min." Not only will your characters get to Levels 450 & 550 faster and you'll pay no "tax penalty", but you're also getting better rewards faster (albeit while giving up some lower-level rewards.) Everyone talks about the downside of the Max-Min player missing out on 100 levels of Champ rewards with their duplicates, but not as many people talk about the Max-Min players zipping through larger, higher-level Champ rewards faster, or the fact that the Max-Max player "sacrificed" 33.3 levels of 4★ Champ reward progress in "tax penalties" (as seen in the math above) while they were "investing in" 100 levels of 3★ Champ rewards, which is a genuine trade-off.
It's created this seriously weird aspect of the economy that lower level covers can actually be more valuable to you than higher level ones. My 1★s are, for the most part, higher level than my 2★s -- I'm actually disappointed when I pull a 2★ out of a standard token - it will be 3:1 either way and for the most part my 1★s are better. This will only get more exaggerated as I level these guys.
Of course, higher tier characters tend to be more powerful and versatile, so that kind of balances out, but like I said, it's weird. I'm sure I'll hit a point where I'm annoyed at pulling too many 3★s from Heroic and Elite tokens...
Wait till you get the 2* and 3* ascended to 5*!
@meadowsweet said: @JoeHandle said: For instance, I see this "max base tier, then max-min, then 5* " asserted as 'best' often, in many places, from many people. but ... uhhh ... it don't make no sense (to me?). What's the focus? What's the rationale?
@JoeHandle said: For instance, I see this "max base tier, then max-min, then 5* " asserted as 'best' often, in many places, from many people. but ... uhhh ... it don't make no sense (to me?). What's the focus? What's the rationale?
I asked the above in hopes that someone would make a case for the advice that was being repeated. Thanks for taking the time, Meadowsweet. I apologize for taking so long to acknowledge that, offline life wasn't cooperating. I was interested because, if "highest level fastest" was desirable to me, but I was willing to compromise by spending some covers to pick up some loot, spending those covers in the lowest tiers isn't the compromise I would make. Maybe I was missing something, either way I wanted to hear why someone would go that way.
[Editing for length!]
@meadowsweet said: Option 1: Max-Min Option 2: Max-Max Option 3: Max-Max at base level, Max-Min above base level ... the compromise strategy is "Max-Max at their starting tier, where the exchange rate is the same as Max-Min. Use Max-Min at the tiers above that, where the exchange rate is better for Max-Min."
@meadowsweet said: Option 1: Max-Min Option 2: Max-Max Option 3: Max-Max at base level, Max-Min above base level
... the compromise strategy is "Max-Max at their starting tier, where the exchange rate is the same as Max-Min. Use Max-Min at the tiers above that, where the exchange rate is better for Max-Min."
There are more than three options. "Max base tier" is a compromise strategy, one of many.
It does work quite well for 3s ... it saves a higher %age of cover spent than it the %age of champ rewards it foregoes ... it's efficient both ways ... but only at the 3* tier.
For 1s and 2s, not the best compromise, may as well max+min from the start if most concerned about attaining higher levels faster. Unless concerned about Heroic tokens, or really hard up for iso, there is a more lucrative compromise approach.
For my situation and preferences, there isn't one approach that's best for all 4 ascendable tiers. Min then max at 4 for 1s & 2s, max then min at 4 for 3s, max all the way for 4s. It couldn't be simpler
But my opinion / conspiracy theory is that the devs screwed up the Ascension math, realized too late, refuse to ever explain the rationale why Max-Max takes more covers to get to Level 550 than Max-Min, and just moved on.
What? Why wouldn't max+max require more covers than max+min?
This hierarchy of exchange rates is not intuitive. Took awhile to wrap head around a scheme that tells me that a 1* cover = a 2* cover = a 3* cover and ultimately in the final stage of the ascension epicycle they are all the equivalent of a 4* cover ... when I continue receiving 20x as many covers for a 2* character as I do for any 4* character (roughly, on average).
I think/guess they implemented what could be implemented without breaking what existed, and did the math quite well considering those constraints.
The thing is, the Max-Max "cover tax / penalty" doesn't apply to the Tier that characters start out at, only the higher levels.
How / why would their be some exchange rate at a character's base tier? 1 cover = 1 champ level is "Championing 1.0".
W/o the partial level credits for merging two maxchamps, there wouldn't be a choice to make, everyone would max+min everything, because the advantage of max+max'ing would be vanishingly small, even negative (the difference varies by resource).
Conversely, if the covers rolled forward from tier to tier, rather than converting to levels (i.e., if there was no "cover tax"), then no one should min+max anything. Who would accept fewer rewards for the same # of covers?
@entrailbucket said: I think some folks can lose sight of the "playing the game" part of the game, in favor of "getting the most rewards." WHY do you want to max out rewards? Ultimately rewards = higher level characters (unless they end up equalling a pile of tokens that you never actually open ever, I guess), so which characters are you trying to level? A lot of these ascended 4* are REALLY REALLY strong. If you're holding off on ascending them in order to get, say, a few more LT, then the bet you're making is that those LT will get you better characters than the ascended 4s. I'm not sure that's true. Some ascended 4* absolutely wipe the floor with new 5*. Plenty of ascended 3* do as well.
@entrailbucket said: I think some folks can lose sight of the "playing the game" part of the game, in favor of "getting the most rewards."
WHY do you want to max out rewards? Ultimately rewards = higher level characters (unless they end up equalling a pile of tokens that you never actually open ever, I guess), so which characters are you trying to level?
A lot of these ascended 4* are REALLY REALLY strong. If you're holding off on ascending them in order to get, say, a few more LT, then the bet you're making is that those LT will get you better characters than the ascended 4s. I'm not sure that's true. Some ascended 4* absolutely wipe the floor with new 5*. Plenty of ascended 3* do as well.
Do you build the roster to play the matches of play the matches to build the roster? Of course it's both, it's chickens and eggs. But some or most(?) players are attracted to one aspect or the other ... and see the other aspect as the part to put up with. For me, roster management, over the long haul, is the attraction. The matches are minigames on the side.
Characters gain levels, it's inevitable. I've got 71 4s waiting to be ascended, could be ascended at any time. I've already been beating up ascended 4s for weeks, months. Stronger characters are fun, sure, but in my situation compromising to ascend them now gains little if anything. Won't improve placements much, a tranche here and there, and those differences are small. This isn't true for everyone. But it is for me.
A few LTs? No, not a few, and it's Iso, CP, HP, LTs, feeder covers and shards; it's what I enjoy getting the things and applying them. Do LTs promise better characters? No (esp not lately and less often as years go by...), but they DO promise more covers for those ascended 4s ... more covers for the good and the bad alike, more fuel to ascend chars and more levels those already ascended.
One of the best things about ascending a chacter to 5 land is the potential to get them all consolidated again. Not in a hurry to 550 anyone, that's The End. After that, starting over. More dupes, each needing iso. As we've done farming for years, but bigger and longer.
@JoeHandle said: @entrailbucket said: I think some folks can lose sight of the "playing the game" part of the game, in favor of "getting the most rewards." WHY do you want to max out rewards? Ultimately rewards = higher level characters (unless they end up equalling a pile of tokens that you never actually open ever, I guess), so which characters are you trying to level? A lot of these ascended 4* are REALLY REALLY strong. If you're holding off on ascending them in order to get, say, a few more LT, then the bet you're making is that those LT will get you better characters than the ascended 4s. I'm not sure that's true. Some ascended 4* absolutely wipe the floor with new 5*. Plenty of ascended 3* do as well. Do you build the roster to play the matches of play the matches to build the roster? Of course it's both, it's chickens and eggs. But some or most(?) players are attracted to one aspect or the other ... and see the other aspect as the part to put up with. For me, roster management, over the long haul, is the attraction. The matches are minigames on the side. Characters gain levels, it's inevitable. I've got 71 4s waiting to be ascended, could be ascended at any time. I've already been beating up ascended 4s for weeks, months. Stronger characters are fun, sure, but in my situation compromising to ascend them now gains little if anything. Won't improve placements much, a tranche here and there, and those differences are small. This isn't true for everyone. But it is for me. A few LTs? No, not a few, and it's Iso, CP, HP, LTs, feeder covers and shards; it's what I enjoy getting the things and applying them. Do LTs promise better characters? No (esp not lately and less often as years go by...), but they DO promise more covers for those ascended 4s ... more covers for the good and the bad alike, more fuel to ascend chars and more levels those already ascended. One of the best things about ascending a chacter to 5 land is the potential to get them all consolidated again. Not in a hurry to 550 anyone, that's The End. After that, starting over. More dupes, each needing iso. As we've done farming for years, but bigger and longer.
@JoeHandle said:
This makes no sense to me and never has. Your roster can only be used to play the game part of the game. None of these rewards have any intrinsic or out of game value. They're not giving away kitchen appliances or dream vacations -- these tokens and covers and currency can only be used to play the match-3 part of the game.
The idea that there's no benefit in getting a character to 550 is frankly insane. The benefit is that I get to have fun playing the game with a really strong character. I'm not necessarily in a hurry to get them there, but I'm also not going to actively slow down the process so I can squeeze 10 extra tokens out of them.
If you're only interested in roster building, why not just play a harem game or something similar? There are games that offer exactly what you want without the inconvenience of matching 3, and without competing for placement, or grinding PvE, or whatever else.
@JoeHandle said: What? Why wouldn't max+max require more covers than max+min? This hierarchy of exchange rates is not intuitive. Took awhile to wrap head around a scheme that tells me that a 1* cover = a 2* cover = a 3* cover and ultimately in the final stage of the ascension epicycle they are all the equivalent of a 4* cover ... when I continue receiving 20x as many covers for a 2* character as I do for any 4* character (roughly, on average). I think/guess they implemented what could be implemented without breaking what existed, and did the math quite well considering those constraints.
@JoeHandle said: What? Why wouldn't max+max require more covers than max+min?
It "took you a while to wrap your head around" the Ascension system they rolled out because there are lots of parts that are illogical or inconsistent. I'm not even sure whether you're saying that it now makes complete sense to you, or that you've just given up justifying it and accepted that they're not going to change it at this point and there's no point in questioning things anymore.
But for example:
Combining those facts, here's how a newer player's 2★ and 4★ rosters would be progressing in parallel:
And that makes sense to you? In the time it takes you to Level 550 fourteen different 2★ characters, you may not have champed a single 4★ at Level 270 yet?
Or, put another way: in the time it takes a new player to earn the 32,544 covers to Max-Max Ascend all 144 non-Limited 4★ characters just to Level 450 (not 550), they could have Max-Max Ascended every 2★ character to Level 550 nearly twenty-six separate times?
I just don't understand people who feel the need to defend the status quo of a sloppy feature rollout:
The devs can explain for themselves why they chose to do what they did. You don't have to contort yourself into pretzels rationalizing and defending what their logic was (and you're only guessing or assuming what they might have thought or discussed.)
@entrailbucket said: @JoeHandle said: @entrailbucket said: I think some folks can lose sight of the "playing the game" part of the game, in favor of "getting the most rewards." WHY do you want to max out rewards? Ultimately rewards = higher level characters (unless they end up equalling a pile of tokens that you never actually open ever, I guess), so which characters are you trying to level? A lot of these ascended 4* are REALLY REALLY strong. If you're holding off on ascending them in order to get, say, a few more LT, then the bet you're making is that those LT will get you better characters than the ascended 4s. I'm not sure that's true. Some ascended 4* absolutely wipe the floor with new 5*. Plenty of ascended 3* do as well. Do you build the roster to play the matches of play the matches to build the roster? Of course it's both, it's chickens and eggs. But some or most(?) players are attracted to one aspect or the other ... and see the other aspect as the part to put up with. For me, roster management, over the long haul, is the attraction. The matches are minigames on the side. Characters gain levels, it's inevitable. I've got 71 4s waiting to be ascended, could be ascended at any time. I've already been beating up ascended 4s for weeks, months. Stronger characters are fun, sure, but in my situation compromising to ascend them now gains little if anything. Won't improve placements much, a tranche here and there, and those differences are small. This isn't true for everyone. But it is for me. A few LTs? No, not a few, and it's Iso, CP, HP, LTs, feeder covers and shards; it's what I enjoy getting the things and applying them. Do LTs promise better characters? No (esp not lately and less often as years go by...), but they DO promise more covers for those ascended 4s ... more covers for the good and the bad alike, more fuel to ascend chars and more levels those already ascended. One of the best things about ascending a chacter to 5 land is the potential to get them all consolidated again. Not in a hurry to 550 anyone, that's The End. After that, starting over. More dupes, each needing iso. As we've done farming for years, but bigger and longer. This makes no sense to me and never has. Your roster can only be used to play the game part of the game. None of these rewards have any intrinsic or out of game value. They're not giving away kitchen appliances or dream vacations -- these tokens and covers and currency can only be used to play the match-3 part of the game. The idea that there's no benefit in getting a character to 550 is frankly insane. The benefit is that I get to have fun playing the game with a really strong character. I'm not necessarily in a hurry to get them there, but I'm also not going to actively slow down the process so I can squeeze 10 extra tokens out of them. If you're only interested in roster building, why not just play a harem game or something similar? There are games that offer exactly what you want without the inconvenience of matching 3, and without competing for placement, or grinding PvE, or whatever else.
@entrailbucket said:
Oh no, people playing the same thing for different reasons, again. No reason we should make sense to each other!
If roster building is so horrid, sir, there are tons of match-3s that have no roster aspects at all. Why not play them instead? The answer is likely the same / similar. Because we're playing this game, for other reasons, of our own.
@JoeHandle said: @entrailbucket said: @JoeHandle said: @entrailbucket said: I think some folks can lose sight of the "playing the game" part of the game, in favor of "getting the most rewards." WHY do you want to max out rewards? Ultimately rewards = higher level characters (unless they end up equalling a pile of tokens that you never actually open ever, I guess), so which characters are you trying to level? A lot of these ascended 4* are REALLY REALLY strong. If you're holding off on ascending them in order to get, say, a few more LT, then the bet you're making is that those LT will get you better characters than the ascended 4s. I'm not sure that's true. Some ascended 4* absolutely wipe the floor with new 5*. Plenty of ascended 3* do as well. Do you build the roster to play the matches of play the matches to build the roster? Of course it's both, it's chickens and eggs. But some or most(?) players are attracted to one aspect or the other ... and see the other aspect as the part to put up with. For me, roster management, over the long haul, is the attraction. The matches are minigames on the side. Characters gain levels, it's inevitable. I've got 71 4s waiting to be ascended, could be ascended at any time. I've already been beating up ascended 4s for weeks, months. Stronger characters are fun, sure, but in my situation compromising to ascend them now gains little if anything. Won't improve placements much, a tranche here and there, and those differences are small. This isn't true for everyone. But it is for me. A few LTs? No, not a few, and it's Iso, CP, HP, LTs, feeder covers and shards; it's what I enjoy getting the things and applying them. Do LTs promise better characters? No (esp not lately and less often as years go by...), but they DO promise more covers for those ascended 4s ... more covers for the good and the bad alike, more fuel to ascend chars and more levels those already ascended. One of the best things about ascending a chacter to 5 land is the potential to get them all consolidated again. Not in a hurry to 550 anyone, that's The End. After that, starting over. More dupes, each needing iso. As we've done farming for years, but bigger and longer. This makes no sense to me and never has. Your roster can only be used to play the game part of the game. None of these rewards have any intrinsic or out of game value. They're not giving away kitchen appliances or dream vacations -- these tokens and covers and currency can only be used to play the match-3 part of the game. The idea that there's no benefit in getting a character to 550 is frankly insane. The benefit is that I get to have fun playing the game with a really strong character. I'm not necessarily in a hurry to get them there, but I'm also not going to actively slow down the process so I can squeeze 10 extra tokens out of them. If you're only interested in roster building, why not just play a harem game or something similar? There are games that offer exactly what you want without the inconvenience of matching 3, and without competing for placement, or grinding PvE, or whatever else. Oh no, people playing the same thing for different reasons, again. No reason we should make sense to each other! If roster building is so horrid, sir, there are tons of match-3s that have no roster aspects at all. Why not play them instead? The answer is likely the same / similar. Because we're playing this game, for other reasons, of our own.
Where did I ever say I didn't like roster building? I like roster building, because I like playing the game, and having a bunch of strong characters makes playing the game more fun. It's not "horrid" at all -- I enjoy both aspects of the game.
If for some reason I only liked matching-3, and viewed roster management as an annoying obstacle, I absolutely would go find a game with no roster or levelling stuff.
@meadowsweet said: @JoeHandle said: What? Why wouldn't max+max require more covers than max+min? This hierarchy of exchange rates is not intuitive. Took awhile to wrap head around a scheme that tells me that a 1* cover = a 2* cover = a 3* cover and ultimately in the final stage of the ascension epicycle they are all the equivalent of a 4* cover ... when I continue receiving 20x as many covers for a 2* character as I do for any 4* character (roughly, on average). I think/guess they implemented what could be implemented without breaking what existed, and did the math quite well considering those constraints. It "took you a while to wrap your head around" the Ascension system they rolled out because there are lots of parts that are illogical or inconsistent. I'm not even sure whether you're saying that it now makes complete sense to you, or that you've just given up justifying it and accepted that they're not going to change it at this point and there's no point in questioning things anymore. But for example: Far fewer characters at the low end (8x 1★ & 14x 2★) than at the high end (148x 4★ & 92x 5★) Earn lower-tier covers exponentially faster than high-tier (20:1 ration between just 2★ & 4★ by your estimation) But at the same Ascension level, covers are equivalent (for Ascended 5★, it's 4 covers per level, regardless of whether the character started as a 1-4★) If you Max-Min, you're credited for covers, but if you Max-Max, you're credited for levels (going from 4★ to 5★, the math is 300 covers / 4 covers per level = 75 levels, versus 100 levels / 4 levels per level = 25 levels) Combining those facts, here's how a newer player's 2★ and 4★ rosters would be progressing in parallel: Method 2★ RosterLevel 2★ CoversTotal 4★ CoversTotal 4★ Coversper Character 4★ CharactersLevel Max-Min 450 13,052 653 4.6 111 Max-Min 550 18,252 913 6.4 127 Max-Max 450 19,552 978 6.8 147 Max-Max 550 23,452 1,172 8.1 168 And that makes sense to you? In the time it takes you to Level 550 fourteen different 2★ characters, you may not have champed a single 4★ at Level 270 yet? Or, put another way: in the time it takes a new player to earn the 32,544 covers to Max-Max Ascend all 144 non-Limited 4★ characters just to Level 450 (not 550), they could have Max-Max Ascended every 2★ character to Level 550 nearly twenty-six separate times? I just don't understand people who feel the need to defend the status quo of a sloppy feature rollout: "Of course at 5★ Ascended, all covers should be subject to the same 4 covers per level exchange ratio!" "Of course you should lose credit for hundreds of covers worth of credit if you Ascend Max-Max; you deserve to be punished!" "Of course new players should have Level 550 versions of 1-2★ characters before they even have the roster slots available to consider opening 4-5★ tokens!" "Of course dilution isn't a problem and there's no reason to think anyone would have problems earning hundreds of covers for hundreds of different different 4-5★ characters!" The devs can explain for themselves why they chose to do what they did. You don't have to contort yourself into pretzels rationalizing and defending what their logic was (and you're only guessing or assuming what they might have thought or discussed.)
Goodness, so much frustration, a blizzard of whatabouts
I thought we were discussing approaches to a system. Not agreeing with your approach /= defending the system itself. Not bothering to gripe about it /= defending it. I don't make it, I just play it (or don't). And settle on some response to it. I mapped it out, modeled it, played with various approaches.
Again, thanks for your time in trying to explain yours, have a great weekend.
@JoeHandle said: Not agreeing with your approach /= defending the system itself. Not bothering to gripe about it /= defending it.
But these statements do equal defending it?:
Why wouldn't max+max require more covers than max+min?
= "they got it right; there should be a penalty"
Took awhile to wrap head around
= "but now I understand why things had to be this way"
they implemented what could be implemented
= "they could not have done anything differently"
did the math quite well considering
= "kudos to them for getting it exactly right"
W/o the partial level credits for merging two maxchamps, there wouldn't be a choice to make
= "I am assuming [without evidence] that they made a deliberate choice to spice things up, and did a great job of forcing players to evaluate the pros and cons of the false dilemma they created"
@entrailbucket said: Where did I ever say I didn't like roster building?
Well, let's see ... yep, it's right there, same place where I supposedly said "that there's no benefit in getting a character to 550."
@entrailbucket said: I like roster building, because I like playing the game, and having a bunch of strong characters makes playing the game more fun. It's not "horrid" at all -- I enjoy both aspects of the game.
Good!
Ah, this forum. Barely on the warm side of dead, and yet manages to be as fecal as ever. A case study.
@meadowsweet said: @JoeHandle said: Not agreeing with your approach /= defending the system itself. Not bothering to gripe about it /= defending it. But these statements do equal defending it?:
Now defending? Seems a sudden switch. Sure, keep practicing.
For me it’s simple. If a character is better than what I already have or at least adds a tool I don’t have currently that I will use daily, then ascend ASAP. If not, farm those rewards and max-max.
The bold is key for me. A lot of folks will say a character helped them on their boost week, and for me, I’d rather have a tougher week and keep farming rewards, than to cash in early to lighten the load. Plus like others have mentioned, with a few exceptions, ascending hasn’t really changed how I progress in the game. Placement is still about coordination in PvP (which I don’t do) and Okoye in PVE. Progression is really about time in both modes. If you are in the proper SCL you can do full clears in PVE and 50 wins in PVE whether you ascend or not.
@Daredevil217 said: For me it’s simple. If a character is better than what I already have or at least adds a tool I don’t have currently that I will use daily, then ascend ASAP. If not, farm those rewards and max-max. The bold is key for me. A lot of folks will say a character helped them on their boost week, and for me, I’d rather have a tougher week and keep farming rewards, than to cash in early to lighten the load. Plus like others have mentioned, with a few exceptions, ascending hasn’t really changed how I progress in the game. Placement is still about coordination in PvP (which I don’t do) and Okoye in PVE. Progression is really about time in both modes. If you are in the proper SCL you can do full clears in PVE and 50 wins in PVE whether you ascend or not.
@Daredevil217 said: For me it’s simple. If a character is better than what I already have or at least adds a tool I don’t have currently that I will use daily, then ascend ASAP. If not, farm those rewards and max-max.
Yeah, the Max-Max ascension is definitely much more a no-brainer for a 4|5★ -- the only thing you lose by waiting is time. If you're going to feel that time loss, ascend them. My current rule is that I'm only going to ascend a 4★ when it's less than max if I keenly feel its lack during their boost week. Juggernaut was a great test case for this, actually, as mine was close (in the 340s) but not nearly there, and the back-end rewards for 4★ are so good. I favorited him just in case, and in the end I didn't ascend him because in general I was able to play just fine with the boosted 5★.
He would have been fun to have as another option during his boost week, but I'll get him there before his next one. Bonus shards are great for that purpose, really.
@GrimSkald said: @Daredevil217 said: For me it’s simple. If a character is better than what I already have or at least adds a tool I don’t have currently that I will use daily, then ascend ASAP. If not, farm those rewards and max-max. The bold is key for me. A lot of folks will say a character helped them on their boost week, and for me, I’d rather have a tougher week and keep farming rewards, than to cash in early to lighten the load. Plus like others have mentioned, with a few exceptions, ascending hasn’t really changed how I progress in the game. Placement is still about coordination in PvP (which I don’t do) and Okoye in PVE. Progression is really about time in both modes. If you are in the proper SCL you can do full clears in PVE and 50 wins in PVE whether you ascend or not. Yeah, the Max-Max ascension is definitely much more a no-brainer for a 4|5★ -- the only thing you lose by waiting is time. If you're going to feel that time loss, ascend them. My current rule is that I'm only going to ascend a 4★ when it's less than max if I keenly feel its lack during their boost week. Juggernaut was a great test case for this, actually, as mine was close (in the 340s) but not nearly there, and the back-end rewards for 4★ are so good. I favorited him just in case, and in the end I didn't ascend him because in general I was able to play just fine with the boosted 5★. He would have been fun to have as another option during his boost week, but I'll get him there before his next one. Bonus shards are great for that purpose, really.
Yeah if you can survive a week without Juggs, you can pretty much survive anything. He was a monster. I have a pretty big stash of mighty/heroics that I’m sitting on for a case such as that. I also forgot about my milestone shards!
I’ve been focusing my 4* fave on Polaris to slowly put levels on the 5*. I’m wondering if this is the best use or if I should be trying to bring up more 4s to max-max. Or if I should be trying to 550 a different toon like Karnak for offense or a defensively annoying character like Juggs, Moondragon or Blob. Problem with match damage monsters like Karnak are that Colossus is a pretty hard counter. And he’s EVERYWHERE in PvP. I actually just moved my 5* shardget from Riri to Colossus. Since everyone seems to have him at 550 in my queues.