jackstar0 said:Otherwise, slowly, but surely people will graduate out of needing iso... and then what is there?
I hit post-Iso a few months ago - you get there eventually though to be fair I started playing the game a few months into its creation, so I seldom got characters faster than I could level them. Of course, until the champ system was implemented the idea of "wasting" covers didn't exist, either. I'd welcome any way to make a dent in my 3.7 million Iso - I boost pretty much all the time and it still goes up. I suspect post-Iso players are in a tiny, tiny minority, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if nothing happens.
Incidentally, classy reference to the Swift essay. Never read it, but I've heard of it as Larry Niven wrote an essay called "Another Modest Proposal" where he advocated using nuclear waste as currency (he gave many good points, but the best was that a good economy relies on currency being spent quickly...)
pheregas said: Agree with OP. 5.2 million iso and I've pretty much soft capped all 5s. I don't include Hulk. He's not a real 5.
My roster is entirely soft-capped, I figured I may as well - I literally have nothing else to do with the Iso.
To those not there yet - you will probably get there eventually so long as you play the game regularly. The Lightning Rounds, in particular, are a good source of quick Iso. Just make sure you're logged in when they start and you can generally consume about 10 rounds so long as you don't focus on one node - then fight one normally if you want the extra standard token. Use Thanos,a regenerator or an character you don't care to lose health for, and the loaner (3* Thanos will still do, though you may have to hit the loaner a few more times.) It goes very quickly if you have 5* match damage - one match, "Court Death," then maybe a bit of wrap up if you don't have 5* Thanos.
OJSP said: That is somewhat insulting to those who are still grinding for iso. I’m saying there are several ways.
That is somewhat insulting to those who are still grinding for iso. I’m saying there are several ways.
OJSP said: Basepuzzler said: OJSP, your logic is flawed. Sure, you could cycle 3’s to 167, but that would mean you spend 14 3* covers to get a token and no other champ rewards. If you go all the way to 266, it’s 5 tokens and 50 cp. so that averages to 16 3* covers per token(or 25 cp). So for that extra 2 3* covers you get 3 4* covers and a bunch of HP. The iso amount is not important. I know the maths. The purpose is not to get more rewards, it’s to spend the iso. I’m just bored of seeing people talking about having iso with nothing to spend on. That is somewhat insulting to those who are still grinding for iso. I’m saying there are several ways.<snip>
Basepuzzler said: OJSP, your logic is flawed. Sure, you could cycle 3’s to 167, but that would mean you spend 14 3* covers to get a token and no other champ rewards. If you go all the way to 266, it’s 5 tokens and 50 cp. so that averages to 16 3* covers per token(or 25 cp). So for that extra 2 3* covers you get 3 4* covers and a bunch of HP. The iso amount is not important.
Straycat said: I thought soft capping meant you don't level them all the way. Thats the way we called it for keeping a 5 underleveled for scaling, right? So a 5 at 255 is softcapped, because even at 1 cover they can go to 270. Then they would be hard capped.
broll said: Straycat said: I thought soft capping meant you don't level them all the way. Thats the way we called it for keeping a 5 underleveled for scaling, right? So a 5 at 255 is softcapped, because even at 1 cover they can go to 270. Then they would be hard capped. Soft capping means different things to different people and I've seen several people talk about different types of soft capping.1. Leveling to some optimal level before the level required to champ (This is usually where ISO spend is as low as possible to get the character to a 'usable' state).2. Leveling to the cap imposed by not having enough covers.I personally think both are fine uses of the term, though it's confusing for people to use both interchangeably. Calling #2 a hard cap would be confusing in the same way IMO with 2 different definitions for the same term. The better solution would be a totally different term. Cover Capping?