Pylgrim wrote: There are no characters released "every week" they are released every two weeks, with the exception of certain period during last year where the average was more like 1.5 weeks and that was more a combination of external factors (release Blade for Halloween, Dino for Anniversary, 4*Thor to coincide with the official appearance of the character (surely a request from Marvel itself)). Very likely not coincidentally the two characters released that period (Beast and Doc Ock) are the worst created since the early stages of the game, clearly suffering from rushed development to get all the other stuff done. So yes, rebalancing a character takes almost as much time and effort as creating a new one. We do not want them to rush the development of new characters (to avoid more Beasts) and they do not want to slow their release rate (for many players, new characters is what keep them coming back). That means that rebalancing of old characters needs to be done in addition to the rest of the stuff, but with lower priority, hence, a much slower pace. And yeah 2* characters have the lowest priority of all so don't wait standing.
raisinbman wrote: Pylgrim wrote: There are no characters released "every week" they are released every two weeks, with the exception of certain period during last year where the average was more like 1.5 weeks and that was more a combination of external factors (release Blade for Halloween, Dino for Anniversary, 4*Thor to coincide with the official appearance of the character (surely a request from Marvel itself)). Very likely not coincidentally the two characters released that period (Beast and Doc Ock) are the worst created since the early stages of the game, clearly suffering from rushed development to get all the other stuff done. So yes, rebalancing a character takes almost as much time and effort as creating a new one. We do not want them to rush the development of new characters (to avoid more Beasts) and they do not want to slow their release rate (for many players, new characters is what keep them coming back). That means that rebalancing of old characters needs to be done in addition to the rest of the stuff, but with lower priority, hence, a much slower pace. And yeah 2* characters have the lowest priority of all so don't wait standing. Ok fine, we should receive a fixed character every 2 weeks, happy I changed one word? Who's waiting standing? I'm addressing a question from someone about huge rosters. I realize this is a silly phone game. Adding more to the fray shouldn't be high priority. Think of all the people who've thrown away "bad" characters only for them to get buffed. They need to make amends as soon as possible because sometimes these characters are forced upon us.
Pylgrim wrote: raisinbman wrote: Pylgrim wrote: There are no characters released "every week" they are released every two weeks, with the exception of certain period during last year where the average was more like 1.5 weeks and that was more a combination of external factors (release Blade for Halloween, Dino for Anniversary, 4*Thor to coincide with the official appearance of the character (surely a request from Marvel itself)). Very likely not coincidentally the two characters released that period (Beast and Doc Ock) are the worst created since the early stages of the game, clearly suffering from rushed development to get all the other stuff done. So yes, rebalancing a character takes almost as much time and effort as creating a new one. We do not want them to rush the development of new characters (to avoid more Beasts) and they do not want to slow their release rate (for many players, new characters is what keep them coming back). That means that rebalancing of old characters needs to be done in addition to the rest of the stuff, but with lower priority, hence, a much slower pace. And yeah 2* characters have the lowest priority of all so don't wait standing. Ok fine, we should receive a fixed character every 2 weeks, happy I changed one word? Who's waiting standing? I'm addressing a question from someone about huge rosters. I realize this is a silly phone game. Adding more to the fray shouldn't be high priority. Think of all the people who've thrown away "bad" characters only for them to get buffed. They need to make amends as soon as possible because sometimes these characters are forced upon us. Two weeks is still too short. Too weeks would mean that they did that instead of developing a new character which is really not in their best interests. There's a vocal minority in the forums that believe we shouldn't have so many new characters so often, but in reality, events releasing new characters are the most popular and most profitable for D3. They're not going anywhere nor slowing down. Best we can hope for is that they address the cumulative side-issues generated by it, such a roster slots cost and watered-down odds of getting a certain character in packs. But really, you can hardly ask them to spend time and resources fixing, say, Bullseye, whose eventual release will excite a handful of people who will eventually stop playing him, anyway as they transition into 3* territory, rather than using that time and effort releasing an exciting new character that will be playable for the rest of the game (or at least until 4* stars become as common as 3* are now).
raisinbman wrote: Pylgrim wrote: raisinbman wrote: Pylgrim wrote: There are no characters released "every week" they are released every two weeks, with the exception of certain period during last year where the average was more like 1.5 weeks and that was more a combination of external factors (release Blade for Halloween, Dino for Anniversary, 4*Thor to coincide with the official appearance of the character (surely a request from Marvel itself)). Very likely not coincidentally the two characters released that period (Beast and Doc Ock) are the worst created since the early stages of the game, clearly suffering from rushed development to get all the other stuff done. So yes, rebalancing a character takes almost as much time and effort as creating a new one. We do not want them to rush the development of new characters (to avoid more Beasts) and they do not want to slow their release rate (for many players, new characters is what keep them coming back). That means that rebalancing of old characters needs to be done in addition to the rest of the stuff, but with lower priority, hence, a much slower pace. And yeah 2* characters have the lowest priority of all so don't wait standing. Ok fine, we should receive a fixed character every 2 weeks, happy I changed one word? Who's waiting standing? I'm addressing a question from someone about huge rosters. I realize this is a silly phone game. Adding more to the fray shouldn't be high priority. Think of all the people who've thrown away "bad" characters only for them to get buffed. They need to make amends as soon as possible because sometimes these characters are forced upon us. Two weeks is still too short. Too weeks would mean that they did that instead of developing a new character which is really not in their best interests. There's a vocal minority in the forums that believe we shouldn't have so many new characters so often, but in reality, events releasing new characters are the most popular and most profitable for D3. They're not going anywhere nor slowing down. Best we can hope for is that they address the cumulative side-issues generated by it, such a roster slots cost and watered-down odds of getting a certain character in packs. But really, you can hardly ask them to spend time and resources fixing, say, Bullseye, whose eventual release will excite a handful of people who will eventually stop playing him, anyway as they transition into 3* territory, rather than using that time and effort releasing an exciting new character that will be playable for the rest of the game (or at least until 4* stars become as common as 3* are now). I disagree. If we can get 1 character from a certain timeline, we can get another in that same timeline. Their best interests should be in making amends with players. I'm a transition player and have been for 180~ days, I'd love a fixed Bullseye since I can't get a 166 team anytime soon. This player, from my other thread, would say the same: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21439#p273691 So you can't call a fixed bullseye a waste of time when both me(180 days) and this guy (340 days) could BOTH use it. 2*s are currently the 'rest of the game' for many transitioners like me. We can't get past the 166 wall and with shield changes, we're doing even worse. You're speaking from a perspective of having access to all the game.
itwasafridaynight wrote: Yellow ending the turn is a big deal breaker. Looks like 3/5/5 is the way to go.
Ben Grimm wrote: itwasafridaynight wrote: Yellow ending the turn is a big deal breaker. Looks like 3/5/5 is the way to go. Agreed. Ending the turn is pretty much an ability-killer. Doesn't mean I'd never use it, but it means I'm not going to prioritize it.
raisinbman wrote: So you didn't read what I said, I think I'm done here. That's your personal bias. This game is, majorly, luck. Just because you've done something doesn't mean that's the 'norm'. Again, your personal experience with 2* is not an acceptable SAMPLE SIZE. I don't have to be doing anything "wrong". This game is majorly luck. Good for you to have that opinion. And no, its not about me, again you didn't read what I said. Bullseye is still in packs. Moonstone is still in packs. I'm not gonna bother explaining the rest of this because you've chosen to be ignorant when I've provided you with plenty of evidence. So you didn't read what I said, I think I'm done here. Edit: yey, the ignore feature works on this forum
Trisul wrote: raisinbman wrote: So you didn't read what I said, I think I'm done here. That's your personal bias. This game is, majorly, luck. Just because you've done something doesn't mean that's the 'norm'. Again, your personal experience with 2* is not an acceptable SAMPLE SIZE. I don't have to be doing anything "wrong". This game is majorly luck. Good for you to have that opinion. And no, its not about me, again you didn't read what I said. Bullseye is still in packs. Moonstone is still in packs. I'm not gonna bother explaining the rest of this because you've chosen to be ignorant when I've provided you with plenty of evidence. So you didn't read what I said, I think I'm done here. Edit: yey, the ignore feature works on this forum Before this derails too far, just want to mention that we all understand that the transition sucks. No doubt. We all get that you're frustrated. I sympathize. Raaaage. But the devs have to make money somehow for all of us to keep playing this game, and they have a small team and userbase (unlike Riot, which is gigantic). If they adopted LoL's (or Blizzard's Hearthstone) business model, they will go out of business. In other words, prioritizing player happiness and having players pay money out of gratitude is NOT a sustainable business model for 99% of companies out there, especially for mobile game devs who have to cater to users that are notoriously disloyal to dev studios and publishers. So they'll keep making new characters like Squirrel Girl because that makes them money, for better or for worse. This is a way different playing field than the AAAs. (btw... seems like recent characters have been pretty good lately and the rumored stuff that they have in the pipeline is pretty exciting. Being happy about that isn't an admission that D3 is perfect by any means. Plus who knows, maybe Squirrel Girl will have good scaling or synergy and end up being pretty good. They are not deliberately TRYING to release bad characters, as they will make less money on bad characters.)
raisinbman wrote: You're missing the point completely. In fact, it's ironic you bring up Riot as your counter-example. Please reread the conversation in full. Matter of fact, I'll throw you a bone: go look up how long stealth characters were broken in LoL.
raisinbman wrote: Never said they were deliberately releasing bad characters, but its a fact they exist
Trisul wrote: Yeah, ok, I'm giving it one last try. raisinbman wrote: You're missing the point completely. In fact, it's ironic you bring up Riot as your counter-example. Please reread the conversation in full. Matter of fact, I'll throw you a bone: go look up how long stealth characters were broken in LoL. You may want to actually state your point in a concise manner, because I read all your posts and they just sound like a bunch of ranting. "The game is just majorly luck"... okay. Is this a surprise to you? Is there something else you want to tell us, besides the fact that the devs owe us a bunch of 2* and 3* remakes every other week? Because that is some entitled ****. On your Riot point, LoL is more balanced this past season than it has been in a long time. Not perfectly balanced, but that's a practical impossibility for all of those games. Stealth characters in particular are notoriously hard to balance in any game, but balance in general is very, very difficult to do even with a dedicated balancing team (which Riot/Blizzard/Valve has). Dota, LoL, and other mobas have lots of frequent balance changes as FOTMs come and go. The dev team for this game is much smaller. raisinbman wrote: Never said they were deliberately releasing bad characters, but its a fact they exist This is unavoidable. As Mark Rosewater said, there must exist bad things by definition. Yes, it's annoying that Beast and Doc Ock suck. But I'm not selling their covers because the devs have shown that they will update some underpowered heroes, albeit fairly slowly.
Trisul wrote: This is unavoidable. As Mark Rosewater said, there must exist bad things by definition. Yes, it's annoying that Beast and Doc Ock suck. But I'm not selling their covers because the devs have shown that they will update some underpowered heroes, albeit fairly slowly.
Phantron wrote: The difference is that MTG has multiple and equally valuable format while MPQ does not.
Phantron wrote: What he's saying that Volcanic Hammer is only bad because Lightning Bolt exists and if there is no Lightning Bolt, then the bad card is suddenly playable. If there is no X Force then quite a few more characters are playable in the top tier. However a card like Squire is never going to be good in just about any environment and it's probably not originally intended to make a card that nobody in their right mind would ever play. At any rate, a deck in MTG uses 60 cards and even if you have exactly 4 of everything that still gives you about 10 unique cards, versus 2 in PvP (you don't get to pick the featured) and 3 in PvE, and the different format of MTG also adds the number of playable cards considerably. If you follow MTG news you'll find that per a fixed format there's usually only a handful of viable decks at the top level, which is quite comparable to how MPQ is played. The difference is that MTG has multiple and equally valuable format while MPQ does not.
turul wrote: scottee wrote: I posted in the other thread, but it looks like green might generate AP. Usually abilities say "does not generate AP" if they don't. It will probably not...
scottee wrote: I posted in the other thread, but it looks like green might generate AP. Usually abilities say "does not generate AP" if they don't.
Phaserhawk wrote: You will only see 2* rebalance if it falls in line with 3*. So say the rebalance IM40, then don't be suprised if a 2* version shows up. Say they reblance Moonstone, don't be suprised when the 3* gold shows up. I'm still suprised we haven't seen a gold version of Hawkeye. Other than Yelena and Hawkeye, the 1*'s aren't terrible, IM35 could use a little cost reduction on his blue, but they are okay. For 2*'s we have Moonstone, Bullseye, Bagman that are in bad spots. I could see Bullseye get a 3rd color if and when they release a 3* Bullseye, Moonstone I don't think will be touched, and Bagaman's only chance is if they re-rebalace Spiderman and decide to just cut and paste but for a 2 star version with a few tweaks on Bag-Man. As for every character needs 3 skills, I'm okay with Juggernaut and Venom having 2 as when buffed they are quite intimidating.