Vhailorx said: Lets say you are a new-ish player who started playing mpq in january of this year. How, exactly, are you supposed to cover and champ a 4* like iceman?---------------------------So your solution, fight, is that a new player needs to build up a roster sufficient to compete at at least my level (which is far from the top of the mountain, but still offers multiple boosted 4*s each week and rewards that are largely dictated by my dedication to grinding rather than my roster), and THEN spend about 3 months opening LTs with a single target 4* set as the only favorite. And at the end of all that they get a single 275 character. Out of about 40 vaulted 4*s, with a vault that is growing all the time.Jaden: these are both thingd that i wrote early in this thread. I dont think it's fair to infer from either statement that i was just talking about iceman.
Lets say you are a new-ish player who started playing mpq in january of this year. How, exactly, are you supposed to cover and champ a 4* like iceman?
---------------------------
Jaedenkaal said: Vhailorx said: Lets say you are a new-ish player who started playing mpq in january of this year. How, exactly, are you supposed to cover and champ a 4* like iceman?---------------------------So your solution, fight, is that a new player needs to build up a roster sufficient to compete at at least my level (which is far from the top of the mountain, but still offers multiple boosted 4*s each week and rewards that are largely dictated by my dedication to grinding rather than my roster), and THEN spend about 3 months opening LTs with a single target 4* set as the only favorite. And at the end of all that they get a single 275 character. Out of about 40 vaulted 4*s, with a vault that is growing all the time.Jaden: these are both thingd that i wrote early in this thread. I dont think it's fair to infer from either statement that i was just talking about iceman. OK... walk us through how that would work with no vaulting or BH.
Vhailorx said: Let's say you are a new-ish player who started playing mpq in january of this year. How, exactly, are you supposed to cover and champ a 4* like iceman?---------------------------So your solution, fight, is that a new player needs to build up a roster sufficient to compete at at least my level (which is far from the top of the mountain, but still offers multiple boosted 4*s each week and rewards that are largely dictated by my dedication to grinding rather than my roster), and THEN spend about 3 months opening LTs with a single target 4* set as the only favorite. And at the end of all that they get a single 275 character. Out of about 40 vaulted 4*s, with a vault that is growing all the time.Jaden: these are both things that i wrote early in this thread. I don't think it's fair to infer from either statement that i was just talking about iceman.
Vhailorx said: But honestly. The fact that you dont see the contradiction between (1) you pointing to BH as a response every time i say "how is someone supposed to cover vaulted 4*s"?, but (2) saying that "no-vaulting + bh" would be too slow. Is the reason we end up in the same argument over and over again. It's cool that BH + champ rewards + event rewards is sufficient to cover your vaulted 4* needs. They arent enough to cover mine (and the vast majority of the playerbase that earns covers at or below my rate). I dont know what your intent is, but your comments always rrad to me as if you are simply dismissing my concerns as trivial or based on bad math or stupid. It gets irritating.
Do you even read what I write in my posts? [author's note: obviously not. No one reads posts on the internet! People just write passionate walls of text about how smart and awesome they are. . .] Please direct me to the the statement in this thread where I said I wanted to go to a system with neither BH nor vaulting?That system might have been acceptable when there were 20 4*s. Though at time cp and LT rates were noticeably lower for most players. So in actuality 4* acquisition rates were too slow then too. In fact, I am 100% certain that if you look at posts on the top ic of 4* acquisition rate by me in the early summer of 2015 you will see that I was concerned then that 4* build rates were too slow, and that demi would create long term problems for the health of the game if they persisted in treating 4*s as super rare prizes for which a player might get one cover if they finished in the top .5% of an event while simultaneously moving to a 4* meta. There were plenty of problems with the old system and I have been pointing them out for a long time. The problem with the vaulting + bh system is NOT that the old system was good. It's that the vaulting + bh system has its own, different problems.
Vhailorx said: McG:I am just going to quote my earlier response to jadenkaal, but let me also compliment you on so expertly dispatching the strawman you substituted for me in your last post. Well done sir or madam!My earlier reponse to someone else responding to an argument they pretended i had made:Do you even read what I write in my posts? [author's note: obviously not. No one reads posts on the internet! People just write passionate walls of text about how smart and awesome they are. . .] Please direct me to the the statement in this thread where I said I wanted to go to a system with neither BH nor vaulting?That system might have been acceptable when there were 20 4*s. Though at time cp and LT rates were noticeably lower for most players. So in actuality 4* acquisition rates were too slow then too. In fact, I am 100% certain that if you look at posts on the top ic of 4* acquisition rate by me in the early summer of 2015 you will see that I was concerned then that 4* build rates were too slow, and that demi would create long term problems for the health of the game if they persisted in treating 4*s as super rare prizes for which a player might get one cover if they finished in the top .5% of an event while simultaneously moving to a 4* meta. There were plenty of problems with the old system and I have been pointing them out for a long time. The problem with the vaulting + bh system is NOT that the old system was good. It's that the vaulting + bh system has its own, different problems.
Vhailorx said: Do you even read what I write in my posts? [author's note: obviously not. No one reads posts on the internet! People just write passionate walls of text about how smart and awesome they are. . .]
New McG said: So, you want to be able to cover old characters, "like Iceman" (but not JUST Iceman). So, that means either throwing EVERYONE back into the mix, adding many, many unwanted characters to the fray. Or maybe some other way, like if you, I don't know, could pick and choose a few specific characters you wanted, and then every certain number of 4* pulls would give you, say, a cover that comes from that group you chose... Nah, let's get all 50 back in there. Then every theoretical new player we're using in this hypothetical (who definitely expects to catch up to people who have 1000+ days of gameplay under their belts) will have characters like Iceman covered in no time, just like how everyone easily covered every character before vaulting came in!Or, would you like to explain how exactly this theoretical player was supposed to cover characters like Iceman? Undo vaulting and just make a thousand LT pulls and hope that luck favors them? That sounds like it may take a while, too.
Where are you getting the impression that I am pining away for a return to the old system? I literally responded to you by quoted myself saying that I don't just want a straight return to the old system. And you then quoted me quoting myself saying i don't want to return to the old system in a post where you snarkily mock my foolish desire to return to the old system.
How clear that can I make myself? I don't like the current vaulting + BH system for a variety of reasons. I also DID NOT like the old system for a variety of different reasons. disliking the one does not make me a proponent of the other.
Wumpushunter said: it would be my guess that most pro vault people have a great many old 4s champed and they have no negative impact on their game but removing them Is a great benefit to getting the new characters faster. And heck with anyone with no champed red hulk or peggy.
Skrofa said: Can we all just agree on a couple of things and just take the fight to the devs instead? Because from what I am reading everyone agrees that:1. The old system sucked tinykitties2. The new system is an improvement but needs some tweaks3. A new token for old 4* would be a great solution.At least those are the three points I keep seeing in most of these discussions. Everything else seems like an argument on semantics
Ruinate said: How are new players supposed to cover Iceman under the old system? Since the day vaulting went live, how many Iceman covers do you realistically think you would have acquired through token pulls? If 5* dilution is a problem, then so is 4* dilution, but Demi did something about it. Vaulting.The question is why do something about 4* dilution, but not 5*'s??
Vhailorx said:Where are you getting the impression that I am pining away for a return to the old system? I literally responded to you by quoted myself saying that I don't just want a straight return to the old system. And you then quoted me quoting myself saying i don't want to return to the old system in a post where you snarkily mock my foolish desire to return to the old system. How clear that can I make myself? I don't like the current vaulting + BH system for a variety of reasons. I also DID NOT like the old system for a variety of different reasons. disliking the one does not make me a proponent of the other.
Fightmastermpq said: Vhailorx said: Didnt everyone who just said they prefer "vaulting + bh" over "no vaulting+bh" also argue that bh was a perfectly way of covering vaulted 4*s? If so, then why is dilution a concern under the"no-vaulting+bh"? You can just use bh to cover whoever you want? It really seems like the people who like vaulting + bh are the one who dont care about vaulted 4*s, either because they dont need many more covers for older 4*s, or because they arent completionists, or because they like building newer 4*s faster. That's all fine. But why does it mean that I am wrong to care more about the vaulted characters? BH is great because it allows for meaningful progress on 1 or 2 characters in a reasonable amount of time to allow you to target a couple favorites or top tier characters to improve your roster to your liking. But as a mechanism for making meaningful progress into the entirety of the 4* tier it falls short. I never claimed that BH was a "perfectly way of covering [all] vaulted 4*s", it's not.
Vhailorx said: Didnt everyone who just said they prefer "vaulting + bh" over "no vaulting+bh" also argue that bh was a perfectly way of covering vaulted 4*s? If so, then why is dilution a concern under the"no-vaulting+bh"? You can just use bh to cover whoever you want? It really seems like the people who like vaulting + bh are the one who dont care about vaulted 4*s, either because they dont need many more covers for older 4*s, or because they arent completionists, or because they like building newer 4*s faster. That's all fine. But why does it mean that I am wrong to care more about the vaulted characters?