Vhailorx said: Pants1000 said: I disagree, at least from my perspective. I fit nicely into the 4* vet category, but I'm fine with vaulting. Yes it changed my overall goals and strategy, but that's not a bad thing. Since vaulting was introduced I champed Wasp, Medusa, Cage, Gwenpool, Blade and Carol. Without vaulting I would have had the same amount of ISO to champ 6 characters, but they probably would have been Bucky, Kate, Drax, Fury, Rulk, etc. Rulk jumps out on that list because he's top tier. I just finally got his 13th cover a week or two ago, which took me over a year due to poor luck with rng. To me that's what I like about vaulting. New characters will get fully covered in months, not over a year.i don't have any over 300 yet, but I have IMHB and Peggy at 290+ and set as bonus heroes, so I expect them to hit 300 soon and maybe someday hit 370. So vaulting is good because you were able to champ wasp, medusa, cage, gwenpool, blade, and carol rather than WS, Kate, Drax, Fury, and Rulk?That's not an analysis of vaulting; it's a comparison of two different groups of 4*s. The current 12 4*s may be good at the moment; but even if we assume that's true today it certainly won't always be the case. If vaulting lasts long enough then the current 12 mix will go through good and bad phases like anything else. As for my groupings, I am sure that some players in all 4 of my categories do not agree with my analysis. I still think my analysis was more or less correct. I think everyone agrees that covering new 4* characters faster is generally good for the game (just like everyone would rather have a bonus heroes system than nothing). the debate is whether or not the benefit of faster champing for new releases is offset by the arbitrarily simultaneous vaulting of all older 4*s. IMO the answer is pretty clearly no, but I am biased as per my own categorization of players. What I really would like demi to comment on is their decision not to do the obvious thing and put vintage 4*s in Classic LTs. the explanation offered by brigby was pure nonsense.
Pants1000 said: I disagree, at least from my perspective. I fit nicely into the 4* vet category, but I'm fine with vaulting. Yes it changed my overall goals and strategy, but that's not a bad thing. Since vaulting was introduced I champed Wasp, Medusa, Cage, Gwenpool, Blade and Carol. Without vaulting I would have had the same amount of ISO to champ 6 characters, but they probably would have been Bucky, Kate, Drax, Fury, Rulk, etc. Rulk jumps out on that list because he's top tier. I just finally got his 13th cover a week or two ago, which took me over a year due to poor luck with rng. To me that's what I like about vaulting. New characters will get fully covered in months, not over a year.i don't have any over 300 yet, but I have IMHB and Peggy at 290+ and set as bonus heroes, so I expect them to hit 300 soon and maybe someday hit 370.
Fightmastermpq said:If we take a step back and look at this at a higher level it might be a little easier to understand why the math tends to favor vaulting over not.....The whole reason dilution is bad is due to RNG-based progression. You pull a token and you have a 1/43 chance at the 4* character that you want......or now a 1/47 chance........and a year from now a 1/64 chance or something like that. So as time goes on your odds of finishing characters just keeps getting worse and worse.So what does vaulting do? It changes those odds from 1/never to 1/12.......at least for the first 8 months then they go to 0 (which all odds were effectively approaching anyway.....) It inherently reduces the RNG in the system by having your odds go from forever decreasing to being fixed at 1/12. In general that's a good thing, and in the very long term (talking a roster full of 370s here) it's a great thing when you combine it with Bonus Heroes and allow people to COMPLETELY remove RNG from their vaulted 4* progression by letting them only set BH to characters that will result in not wasting covers.So at this point really the ONLY negative is the quality of new characters vs. vaulted. I will argue that the advantage here falls to the new characters due to power creep, but even if you disagree I still think the differences are negligible when you compare to the anti-RNG benefits that vaulting provides combined with BH as a mechanism to still be able to cover those handful of truly god-tier vaulted 4s should you feel the need to do so.
Vhailorx said: Mohio. You act like disliking vaulting is the same as liking token dilution.Dilution was a real problem. But demi's terrible solution just creates new and different problems. Adding 5% BH and doing vaulting is just a slap in the face to player: "we could solve this problem sensibly, but instead we are twisting the monetization screws!"
Vhailorx said: Holy tinykitty Fight, you keep on arguing right past the issue I am trying to discuss. Odds haven't gone from 1/47 to 1/12. They have gone from "1/47 across 47 different characters" to "1/12 for 12 characters and 0/35 for 35 characters." If you aren't getting 15-30 covers per month for vaulted 4*s from placement rewards and vaults etc, then the 0/35 is a huge setback for roster progression. Because the game still incentivizes a complete roster via champing, weekly boosting, and PVE essentials.No one likes token dilution. Everyone likes bonus heroes. Everyone likes champing new releases faster. But all of these issues are only linked because demi decided to link them. --Token dilution could have been solved by offering multiple tokens, or reducing the price of tokens to allow player resources to account for more pulls. --Bonus Heroes could just have been bolted on to the pre-vault system.--New releases could have been champed faster by significantly increasing the availability of covers during release events (top 100 could get multiple covers instead of top 20, or new releases could be offered in back to back events upon release, or new character tokens could offer more than a .18% drop rate for new releases!).
Fightmastermpq said:Vaulting and BH just gives you so much more control over your long term roster plans, and for a community that has reviled RNG-based progression for so long I really just have to assume that most just aren't seeing this massive long-term benefit that vaulting has brought us..
Vhailorx said: Odds haven't gone from 1/47 to 1/12. They have gone from "1/47 across 47 different characters" to "1/12 for 12 characters and 0/35 for 35 characters."
mohio said: I see over and over in these threads about vaulting that people wouldn't mind the latest 12 being the only 4s in the latest legends token, but they want all 4s (or only the older ones) available in either the classic tokens or a separate store altogether. While I don't deny that that would be a great change for the player, it is just not what the developers intend for the game, and what they think is in the best long-term interest of the game. Choice is nice when you are a well-educated consumer and know how your choice will effect you. Too many choices, however, can actually be detrimental to people's enjoyment. Anyway, I guess my point is, the devs want everyone playing with the newer characters that they spend their time creating, and not just collecting dust for 6 months when you finally get 13 covers, and then continue collecting dust because why use a 270 boosted over a 320 boosted? So, they force everyone to collect those characters by vaulting the older ones. Giving players an out by offering "vintage" 4s in another store is not what they want, so I really don't think it's coming. They are experimenting with other ways to offer these characters, like the vintage heroics and the daily 4* store, so maybe other attempts are coming as well, but I wouldn't expect another cp store option since that would undermine their goals (well, what I assume their goals are).
mohio said: the devs want everyone playing with the newer characters that they spend their time creating, and not just collecting dust for 6 months when you finally get 13 covers, and then continue collecting dust
Vhailorx said: Mohio. You act like disliking vaulting is the same as liking token dilution.Dilution was a real problem. But demi's terrible solution just creates new and different problems. If the game (1) strongly pushes players to have a complete roster, but (2) has too many characters relative to the current token odds, then the solution isnt to reduce the number of characters available in tokens. That solves problem 2 but makes problem 1 worse. The solution is to increase the options available to players for roster building. And before you are all "but bonus heroes. . ." 5% is not enough relative to the scale of vaulting. Just adding 5% BH onto the old system would have been good. Adding 5% BH and doing vaulting is just a slap in the face to player: "we could solve this problem sensibly, but instead we are twisting the monetization screws!"
Vhailorx said:What the tinykitty is wrong with players advocating for changes that are good for the player? And before everyone starts screaming about "whiny, entitled millenials," who is arguing that demi can't make money for the game? All I am saying is that demi's vision for the game may not always be the best vision, or even a particularly good one.
Pants1000 said: I disagree, at least from my perspective. I fit nicely into the 4* vet category, but I'm fine with vaulting. Yes it changed my overall goals and strategy, but that's not a bad thing. Since vaulting was introduced I champed Wasp, Medusa, Cage, Gwenpool, Blade and Carol. Without vaulting I would have had the same amount of ISO to champ 6 characters, but they probably would have been Bucky, Kate, Drax, Fury, Rulk, etc. Rulk jumps out on that list because he's top tier. I just finally got his 13th cover a week or two ago, which took me over a year due to poor luck with rng. To me that's what I like about vaulting. New characters will get fully covered in months, not over a year.i don't have any over 300 yet, but I have IMHB and Peggy at 290+ and set as bonus heroes, so I expect them to hit 300 soon and maybe someday hit 370. So vaulting is good because you were able to champ wasp, medusa, cage, gwenpool, blade, and carol rather than WS, Kate, Drax, Fury, and Rulk?That's not an analysis of vaulting; it's a comparison of two different groups of 4*s. The current 12 4*s may be good at the moment; but even if we assume that's true today it certainly won't always be the case. If vaulting lasts long enough then the current 12 mix will go through good and bad phases like anything else. As for my groupings, I am sure that some players in all 4 of my categories do not agree with my analysis. I still think my analysis was more or less correct. I think everyone agrees that covering new 4* characters faster is generally good for the game (just like everyone would rather have a bonus heroes system than nothing). the debate is whether or not the benefit of faster champing for new releases is offset by the arbitrarily simultaneous vaulting of all older 4*s. IMO the answer is pretty clearly no, but I am biased as per my own categorization of players. What I really would like demi to comment on is their decision not to do the obvious thing and put vintage 4*s in Classic LTs. the explanation offered by brigby was pure nonsense.
broll said: mohio said: the devs want everyone playing with the newer characters that they spend their time creating, and not just collecting dust for 6 months when you finally get 13 covers, and then continue collecting dust This brings up another problem with vaulting that doesn't get as much press. People have posted here that their favorite part of the game is the pokemon effect (gotta catch em all) and it's well known how many gamers are completionist. They are going to turn away that audience by ruining that aspect of the game.