Welcome Death said: Sure thing. If you pulled all legendaries in a non-vaulted system, you would need to pull about 719 legendaries to cover all 47 4* covers, assuming an even spread and color coverage (it would be higher of course because youd get dupes and runs on one character, but let's assume a perfect world for both systems). Your 5s (If you pulled all classics) would average around 390-405. You would need 6248 pulls to get every 4* to 370. At that point, if you pulled all classics, your 5s would be at level 522. That's max champing all 4s. Now, with a vaulting system, assuming you're only using LTs and getting the vaulted 4s from those pulls, you would need to pull 10,705 tokens just to COVER the vaulted 4s. Thats enough pulls to max champ every classic 5*, build dupes and get the dupes to level 483. Max champing the vaulted 4s would require 93,058 pulls. Thats enough pulls to max champ and flip every classic 5* 11 times(!) and have your last set at level 475. These rates are ridiculous. Sure, building a single 4* faster is a good thing, and if we played a game with no essential 4* / boosts / featured / whatever it would be a non-issue. But the game is set-up in a way that you have to have all characters rostered in order to compete (even DDQ!)So, to answer your question. Bonus heroes / vaulting made it about 2 times the rate to acquire one single classic 4*. For the tier in general, the rate is about 6.7% of what it used to be. In other words, you have to pull about 15 times the amount of tokens to get the same rate on the tier as before. Bonus heroes = great idea! Vaulting = ....maybe not so much. If theyd kept the BH and did away with vaulting and/or gave better rates for BY specifically in the LT store, it would have been a fantastic system for fighting dilution.
Fightmastermpq said: broll said: carrion pigeons said: The problem people have with vaulting varies according to their status. Veterans with champed 4*s don't like vaulting because champ rewards for newly champed characters are less valuable than those with more levels. Vaulting makes it harder to get characters deep into their champ levels, and this reduces the flow of resources to vets.People in the 4* transition don't like vaulting because they had a whole bunch of half-developed characters who are suddenly either wasted space or else extremely more long-term projects that can only rely on Bonus Heroes to get anywhere, one at a time.People without older characters at all don't like vaulting because they still have to compete against people who have them, and it feels like an unfair advantage they can never overcome, in terms of flexibility and utility.Also, everyone objects to the way vaulting causes more wasted pulls. This is admittedly a short-term problem, but it's one people are having right now.Vaulting has clear long-term benefits: it creates a shifting metagame which gives the game more depth. It lessens the burden on new players in some respects to advance. It justifies the existence of Bonus Heroes, which probably would never have been implemented without it. It came with an associated bump in total 4* acquisition. All of that is nice. But it's easy to see how a change that had immediate negative effects on every active player in the game would be unpopular. You were gonna get a like until that last paragraph. There are no clear long-term benefits and those short-term benefits aren't going to suddenly go away. A few of them will gradually fade, but that will take either vets quitting or a very long time to achieve. The first rule of Likes is you don't talk about Likes.How about the length of time it takes to get to a point where you have virtually no wasted 4* covers getting cut to 1/4 what it was before? Is that not a benefit? Feels like a benefit to me.
broll said: carrion pigeons said: The problem people have with vaulting varies according to their status. Veterans with champed 4*s don't like vaulting because champ rewards for newly champed characters are less valuable than those with more levels. Vaulting makes it harder to get characters deep into their champ levels, and this reduces the flow of resources to vets.People in the 4* transition don't like vaulting because they had a whole bunch of half-developed characters who are suddenly either wasted space or else extremely more long-term projects that can only rely on Bonus Heroes to get anywhere, one at a time.People without older characters at all don't like vaulting because they still have to compete against people who have them, and it feels like an unfair advantage they can never overcome, in terms of flexibility and utility.Also, everyone objects to the way vaulting causes more wasted pulls. This is admittedly a short-term problem, but it's one people are having right now.Vaulting has clear long-term benefits: it creates a shifting metagame which gives the game more depth. It lessens the burden on new players in some respects to advance. It justifies the existence of Bonus Heroes, which probably would never have been implemented without it. It came with an associated bump in total 4* acquisition. All of that is nice. But it's easy to see how a change that had immediate negative effects on every active player in the game would be unpopular. You were gonna get a like until that last paragraph. There are no clear long-term benefits and those short-term benefits aren't going to suddenly go away. A few of them will gradually fade, but that will take either vets quitting or a very long time to achieve.
carrion pigeons said: The problem people have with vaulting varies according to their status. Veterans with champed 4*s don't like vaulting because champ rewards for newly champed characters are less valuable than those with more levels. Vaulting makes it harder to get characters deep into their champ levels, and this reduces the flow of resources to vets.People in the 4* transition don't like vaulting because they had a whole bunch of half-developed characters who are suddenly either wasted space or else extremely more long-term projects that can only rely on Bonus Heroes to get anywhere, one at a time.People without older characters at all don't like vaulting because they still have to compete against people who have them, and it feels like an unfair advantage they can never overcome, in terms of flexibility and utility.Also, everyone objects to the way vaulting causes more wasted pulls. This is admittedly a short-term problem, but it's one people are having right now.Vaulting has clear long-term benefits: it creates a shifting metagame which gives the game more depth. It lessens the burden on new players in some respects to advance. It justifies the existence of Bonus Heroes, which probably would never have been implemented without it. It came with an associated bump in total 4* acquisition. All of that is nice. But it's easy to see how a change that had immediate negative effects on every active player in the game would be unpopular.
broll said: You were gonna get a like until that last paragraph. There are no clear long-term benefits and those short-term benefits aren't going to suddenly go away. A few of them will gradually fade, but that will take either vets quitting or a very long time to achieve.
Vhailorx said: I think the ultimate bottom line that we see here among the vet/forum community is that vaulting is good for, and liked by, players with 370 4*s (*cough*Fightmaster*cough*), but bad for, and disliked by, players with ~300 4*s (*cough*vhailorx*cough*).
What about players with no championed 4*s (like me)? I think there are benefits for them as well. It seem that they will now get at least a handful of useable 4*s much more quickly than before and perhaps get to a point where they are more competitive with 4* rosters sooner. For instance, one thing that I don't know has been mentioned is that it might be possible to much more quickly get to the point where you can get top 10 in PvE more consistently and make 900 in PvP, which means more 4* covers (though if they switch the focus on rewards to non-vaulted characters this might not be as much of a benefit).
I say "might be" because I have not yet started championing my 4*s and may find that even with 6-12 non-vaulted 4*s champs, I'm still not able to compete. And even if I were able to compete, it might only be when one of my 6-12 4*s was boosted, but that's better than having no 4* champs at all. OTOH, in the longer run, I suspect there will come a point where advancing to the next level will require having 4*s that are higher than level 270-300, which is probably going to be harder with vaulting.
On a side note, believe it or not, in my current situation, there are benefits to dilution and I would actually prefer to go back to the old system for a few weeks, but that's just from a totally selfish perspective and because of my oddball, less-than-optimal, play style. I am currently finishing off championing my last five 3*s and am getting 4* covers for the latest 12 at too high a rate. But that's because I have chosen to finish off my 3*s before starting the 4*s, even though I could do otherwise. Yes, I know that the "correct" solution is hoarding tokens, but I really hate doing that (plus I'm trying to get Wasp covers before she leaves the stores - I plan to hoard once Wasp leaves the stores). So my selfish preference would be to go back to a diluted pool for the next few weeks then switch to the latest-12 after I finish my 3*s. And yes, I know that if they added another store, I could take my pick and pull from whichever one I wanted.
Welcome Death said: Sure thing. If you pulled all legendaries in a non-vaulted system, you would need to pull about 719 legendaries to cover all 47 4* covers, assuming an even spread and color coverage (it would be higher of course because youd get dupes and runs on one character, but let's assume a perfect world for both systems). Your 5s (If you pulled all classics) would average around 390-405. You would need 6248 pulls to get every 4* to 370. At that point, if you pulled all classics, your 5s would be at level 522. That's max champing all 4s.
Not sure I follow you here; I think you're mixing concepts. The "rate" of 4* acquisition is identical with or without vaulting - 86% of your legendary pulls will be 4*s. The distribution of 4*s within that set is what changes. And you can never achieve the same distribution as before; that's precisely what has changed. All you can really analyze is the change in your odds of getting a specific character, or (if you multiply everything by 1/3) the odds of getting a specific character and color, before and after the distribution change. And what I see is this: for any given legendary token pull, vaulting/bonus heroes quadruples the odds of acquiring a given 4* nonvaulted character, from 1.8% to 8.3%. It also changes the odds of acquiring a vaulted character to a variable rate, which is largely in the control of the player, between 0.12% and 4.3% (vs. a flat 1.8% before the change). (And, as a side note, you can guarantee you won't get unwanted covers for vaulted characters.... which some may find useful.)
These are significant changes, no doubt; and it would be interesting to extend the math to the practical application of the changes in terms of mean-pulls-to-coverage and such. But I've seen some people saying that this will mean people can "never" cover vaulted characters. That's simply not true -- in fact, if you focus specifically on covering that character, you will statistically do it significantly faster than you would have before. And of course this doesn't take into account special events, reward covers, and potential vault rotation.
Ultimately, I'm not arguing with those who are saying "vaulting sucks; I hate it". It's fine to not like something. I'm arguing with the people who are saying "this breaks the game" or "now players can never cover vaulted characters".
@Vhailorx , I don't think I'm making a false equivalence at all. To the contrary, my goal is to compare equivalent things pre- and post-change. To me, a false equivalence would be "I have a greater chance of getting 3*s which offsets the lower chance of getting 4*s". That's false because the value of a 3* and a 4* are very different. I'm just comparing flat odds per token pull for a given cover/character, which is really the only thing that vaulting/bonus changes. I'm all ears if you see it differently, though...
tl;dr I have probably spent too much time thinking about this.
DaveR4470 said: Ultimately, I'm not arguing with those who are saying "vaulting sucks; I hate it". It's fine to not like something. I'm arguing with the people who are saying "this breaks the game" or "now players can never cover vaulted characters".
Jexman said: Have the developers themselves explained to us what *they* thought vaulting would accomplish for their game?
GurlBYE said: You can compare it to the odds of drawing one specific X cover from X pack, except that wasn't the expectation, switching to bonus heros' its not just the expectation, it's the singular path at the moment, barring the vaults which are unrelated. .
Fightmastermpq said: DaveR4470 said: Ultimately, I'm not arguing with those who are saying "vaulting sucks; I hate it". It's fine to not like something. I'm arguing with the people who are saying "this breaks the game" or "now players can never cover vaulted characters". This has been my soap box recently. The vast majority of complaints are "vaulting sucks because [bad math]...." and I really think that people would be a lot more open to it if they understand the math and what it really means for their rosters. tinykitty just today in this thread I thought a little deeper on the very long term and realized that vaulting might actually be better for me than I originally thought.
sh81 said: I cannot get 4* from progression. It literally never happens, unless its a giveaway on a boss event. Im a regular top 50 finisher, literally every event, and occasional top 10.On the back of Prodigal sun Ill likely get 3 Storm Mohawk, which will amount to 2000 iso. Which in the context of the time put into the event and my top 50 finish, is meaningless. And quite frankly demoralising.If it was a 4*? That would be AWESOME! Especially if it was also multiple covers (or even single covers for 2 or 3 characters).
Starfury said: Fightmastermpq said: DaveR4470 said: Ultimately, I'm not arguing with those who are saying "vaulting sucks; I hate it". It's fine to not like something. I'm arguing with the people who are saying "this breaks the game" or "now players can never cover vaulted characters". This has been my soap box recently. The vast majority of complaints are "vaulting sucks because [bad math]...." and I really think that people would be a lot more open to it if they understand the math and what it really means for their rosters. tinykitty just today in this thread I thought a little deeper on the very long term and realized that vaulting might actually be better for me than I originally thought. Vaulting sucks because my draw rate of vaulted characters dropped from ~75% to 5%.Not sure if that qualifies as bad math but it sure as tinykitty qualifies as a bad change for me.
Fightmastermpq said: Does it? Your draw rate of new characters went from 25% to 100%. Don't know what your roster looks like, but I would wager that your path to success is better under the new system than the old.
Fightmastermpq said: Starfury said: Fightmastermpq said: DaveR4470 said: Ultimately, I'm not arguing with those who are saying "vaulting sucks; I hate it". It's fine to not like something. I'm arguing with the people who are saying "this breaks the game" or "now players can never cover vaulted characters". This has been my soap box recently. The vast majority of complaints are "vaulting sucks because [bad math]...." and I really think that people would be a lot more open to it if they understand the math and what it really means for their rosters. tinykitty just today in this thread I thought a little deeper on the very long term and realized that vaulting might actually be better for me than I originally thought. Vaulting sucks because my draw rate of vaulted characters dropped from ~75% to 5%.Not sure if that qualifies as bad math but it sure as tinykitty qualifies as a bad change for me. Does it? Your draw rate of new characters went from 25% to 100%. Don't know what your roster looks like, but I would wager that your path to success is better under the new system than the old.
Starfury said: Fightmastermpq said: Does it? Your draw rate of new characters went from 25% to 100%. Don't know what your roster looks like, but I would wager that your path to success is better under the new system than the old. I have around 15 vaulted 4* champs which in all likelyhood won't get past 300 (or 280 for some of the recent ones) under the current system.What's that path to success supposed to be? Have a moving window of 12 relevant 4* with an expiry date of 6 months each?
sh81 said: Welcome Death said: If youre level 65+, you likely dont even need 3* And coming by 4* covers is HARD.I can buy an LT once or twice a week through CP I accrue. This is a slow process.
Welcome Death said: If youre level 65+, you likely dont even need 3*
sh81, I am curious as to why you are only getting one or two legendary pulls a week. Have you actually tracked your resource usage or are you just guesstimating? It sounds like you are at a VERY similar spot to me, but a little bit ahead (I have no champed 4*s and have never finished top 10 in a PvP). Since I started tracking my usage a month and a half ago, I've gotten 1.65 legendary pulls a day. I would have guesstimated a much lower number before. And I certainly don't find ISO useless. I have a half dozen 4*s close to being champed and will need all of it I can get. Are you getting top 50 in PvE? (I know you said you were in PvP, which is usually where I end up).
I also don't understand why y'all are saying that 3* covers are near useless after championing or after you reach 65. I am at SHIELD rank 66 and still find the rewards quite useful (I'm nowhere close to max championing any of my 3*s). With 43 3* champs (I'm not quite there yet), that ISO, HP, and XP (which turns into ISO) add up quick. Don't forget about the three 4* covers you get from 3* champ levels - that's currently 129 covers total, which is nothing to sneeze at.
Also, how long have you been playing? I suspect it's probably only a bit longer than me (ca 160 days). If so, don't forget about the 4* covers from SHIELD resupply. It's not a huge source, but I think you get about 50-60 total.