Felessa said: Despite being a 4* player, I would like to see new 3*s too, especially because even with 47 characters, that tier still have missing color schemes ( and ), which I think it's quite an awkward thing.
broll said: I sure hope so.I also hope we're gonna be done with 4*s soon.#SixStarsOverdue
Ptahhotep said: What we really need is the same number of characters in each tier. Then there could be consistent feeder lines running from the 2* level up to the 5* level.
broll said: Ptahhotep said: What we really need is the same number of characters in each tier. Then there could be consistent feeder lines running from the 2* level up to the 5* level. I generally like where you're coming from. 1*s should be excluded from that since they don't have champ levels. So 166 - 8 / 4 tiers = 39.5 characters per tier. I'd be fine with that. Redistribute characters from some of the over diluted tiers to under diluted ones. What I wouldn't be fine with is 71 characters in every tier. I'd drop the game in a heartbeat.Honestly, as much as I hate to admit it, the only way we're likely to get a consistent level of feeders (excluding 3*s) is if/when 4* tier gets to double the side of both 3* and 5* tier. Then you could have each 3* feed 2 4*s and double 5* feeders from 4* tier. But that's not a good solution either because I don't want to live in a game world with ~100 character in any one tier. 4* tier needs to get capped, it's already too big.
D4Ni13 said:I never liked the variant mechanic. Instead I was more into having the same hero with different builds. So lets say you like Wolverine. Instead of having 5 tiers, I would have made 5 alternate builds. You can give access to certain builds the same way you do with tiers, but having builds instead of variants would mean that you will always have the character eligible to his event or required mission and would have the option to develop or change his playstyle through different builds.
broll said: Honestly I wish they'd have gone with something like Strike Force has, were rather than having characters at each tier you boost them through the tiers by collecting more.
Jarvind said: Quebbster said: I have all 47 threestars maxchamped now. I certainly wouldn't mind a 48th threestar, I don't really know what to do with my 3* bonus heroes now. Personally I just leave all my 3s unfavorited. You just get random covers when you get a BH that way.
Quebbster said: I have all 47 threestars maxchamped now. I certainly wouldn't mind a 48th threestar, I don't really know what to do with my 3* bonus heroes now.
sambrookjm said: Jarvind said: Quebbster said: I have all 47 threestars maxchamped now. I certainly wouldn't mind a 48th threestar, I don't really know what to do with my 3* bonus heroes now. Personally I just leave all my 3s unfavorited. You just get random covers when you get a BH that way. I just go with whichever one needs covers for the 3-star farm. Right now, it's my 3/1/3 Spider Man. When he gets his 13th good cover, I'll seel the max champed Spidey, champ the new one, and likely switch the favorite over to Squirrel Girl (currently 0/0/2).
DAZ0273 said: The problem is that creating absolutely brand new 3* characters just to exist in that tier not already in the game a.) Cost the devs money for licensing and b.) Given the ease of which 3* characters can be obtained and champed is almost impossible to monetise to pay for that licensing cost. The previous releases meant they could monetise the 3* versions with vaults on release but in most cases only pay a single fee or a small fee on top to cover differences in the 3 & 5 versions. They know once those babies are in tokens you can bonus hero them to champ status is no time whatsoever and most players in the 3* tier and above know that also and so have reduced impetus to chase them.
jamesh said: DAZ0273 said: The problem is that creating absolutely brand new 3* characters just to exist in that tier not already in the game a.) Cost the devs money for licensing and b.) Given the ease of which 3* characters can be obtained and champed is almost impossible to monetise to pay for that licensing cost. The previous releases meant they could monetise the 3* versions with vaults on release but in most cases only pay a single fee or a small fee on top to cover differences in the 3 & 5 versions. They know once those babies are in tokens you can bonus hero them to champ status is no time whatsoever and most players in the 3* tier and above know that also and so have reduced impetus to chase them. I've seen explanations like this, but never from the developers themselves. Is it based on actual knowledge passed on by one of the devs through a channel like Discord, or is it just a guess? I don't remember seeing anything official on the forum.I imagine the main cost that Demiurge can control is their own development time spent creating/testing move sets for new characters, and creating the artwork. In that sense, it is clear that the dual 3/5 releases have less work (and money) put into them than two independent new characters.I wouldn't really expect the 3* variants to ever recoup their development costs on their own, even if there was no additional licensing from Marvel. I assumed they did them to give people a taste of the 5* variant: you've experienced what the 3* character is like fully levelled, so just imagine what the 5* one will be like. If that was seen as the primary reason for making new 3* characters, then it was probably a bit of a double edged sword: playing 3* Angel didn't increase my desire to chase Archangel.
DAZ0273 said: It's a guess.Edit: Whilst I would agree about Angel, Strange & Thanos (the first two in the format) seem to fit the concept of trying to extract money out of players to chase them better - there are those who argue that 3* Strange is actually better than his 5* version, speaking realtively not in terms of actual damage etc, due to the burst heal.