New Legendary options (proposed revision)

Quebbster wrote:

Making the tokens with OML in them even cheaper wouldn't end well, I am afraid.

Well, it will re-balance the RNG luck reliance... and optimistically, de-emphasize the uni-polar design of his character because everyone will eventually have him situated similarly. Therefore, tactics & character selection will adapt globally.
Maybe not make OML *cheaper*, but make him more easily acquired by those who have turned in the requisite # of tokens and had misfortune
I agree completely with: fmftint

fmftint wrote:

We need a streak breaker

Jarvind wrote:

I don't dislike the general idea, but those cheap LTs are going to have mostly weak to middling 4*s in them (Bag Lady, XFW, Starlord). You'd be opening them almost entirely for the shot at OML and maybe Phoenix (lolsurfer) - mostly everything else would just be sold. Bleh.

Weak / old 4* should be cheaper.
LT tokens that were first introduced *should* be distributed as such (where veteran players have acquired the necessary covers on previous 5*s and are working on the new) as opposed to complete luck of the draw. I think (per above) reducing the emphasis / imbalance of OML can be accomplished simply by shifting in favor of easier acquisition. Those who have had OML covered heavily (especially those max/champ 550 guys) have had sufficient time to reap the benefits of their good fortune; and allowing those transitioning 5* players who are less lucky to catch up will certainly not affect the crew who have moved on to far-superior characters combinations and strategies. if you are working on classic legends, you most likely are tying-up loose ends... thus old 4*s may complete the transitioning crew, old 5* have a discount rate, but lack the relevant 4* progression. For casual players who have a more difficult time building CP/Tokens may find the Classics more appealing because the cheaper cost of entry.

Crowl wrote:

The problem with tying the 4*'s into the age thing as well is that everyone wants newer 4*'s (plus others depending on your luck or the ones you have champed) and forcing them to have to choose between possibly getting usable 5*'s and building 4*'s seems like a harsh one.

true, which is why they cost significantly more (40% more, but bean counters can set appropriate limits).

Crowl wrote:

With the amount of 4*'s there are now, they should do something where we can choose to exclude a certain amount of 4*'s from an LT.

That would be great, though they have never done this so it would be unprecedented ... welcomed & appreciated, but unprecedented.

Crowl wrote:

As far as 5*'s, I don't think the naming works, journeyman sounds low quality

agreed, working title... the more poetic can find the appropriate prose

Crowl wrote:

Given that you still need a decent amount of covers to make a 5* usable, they could bring out a featured 5* LT token, each day that token would have double the normal chance of a specific 5* so people would have a bit less rng to screw them over.

Yes please!!!! Immediately green-light this idea!!!!... we do it for 4* characters, why not for Legends? The currency / ecosystem already accounts for progression-suppression, this will allow incentive and re-invigorate those who are burning out or feeling dejected by luck

Beyond the above stuff, everyone should have an unlucky LT counter, miss out on a 5* 9 times in a row and your 10th will be a certain 5*, the counter would reset if you got one in the meantime.[/quote]

simonsez wrote:

I'm still chasing OML and PHX, and the last thing I'd want is a **** 4* for the 97% of the pulls where I don't get what I need. 4*s should never be tiered like that, otherwise most people would never cover any of the newer ones.

even if you could chase those two characters down at higher odds (5% vs. 3.8%) while simultaneously paying 75% the cost (15 CP vs. 20 CP)... buy 3 get 1 free?