DAZ0273 said: fight4thedream said: Are lower end rosters hurt by dilution? Only if their main priority is to champ everyone. But this isn't exclusively a 4* tier problem. The 5* tier also has this issue to a lesser extent but ironically the stakes are higher in the 5* tier as champing the "wrong" 5* characters will drastically make a player's experience less enjoyable, particularly in PvP. I don't know how true that is for the 4* tier. I agree the current state of affairs is not ideal for a new player looking to optimize their competitive edge but it's exactly for that reason that I think inter-tier 4*/5* pairings are good for the game since it allows for a greater amount of players to get their foot in the door of the highest tier of play. This is an interesting point.I transistioned to a champion 4* player with X-Force Wolverine, Luke Cage, Mordo and then Wasp (pre-buff) during the period of "meta" Cap Marvel, Medusa, Gamora, R4G and Vulture. I am reasonably confident that the bad RNG handed to me slowed my progress but each of these characters (and especially Wasp post buff) could get me to at least 575 in PvP so you could argue the toss whether having the "meta" would have advanced me faster. Probably in PvE it would have but not enough to have an impact.I am currently waiting to go to the 5* tier. So far I have Cable. That is NOT happening. There is no question however that a champed Kitty would massively influence my game strategies as I have the 4* assorted kit all ready to go.Given that a new player need only really chase a champed 4* Juggernaut, R4G and Bishop to put out a "competetive" (I don't even think Worthy Cap is necessary) PvP team with just a non optimal Kitty Pryde who has a couple of yellow, dilution suddenly doesn't look like a problem.However...each new 4* does make even getting those guys covered more difficult and as shards are glacial pace, I think new players may still struggle with dilution.
fight4thedream said: Are lower end rosters hurt by dilution? Only if their main priority is to champ everyone. But this isn't exclusively a 4* tier problem. The 5* tier also has this issue to a lesser extent but ironically the stakes are higher in the 5* tier as champing the "wrong" 5* characters will drastically make a player's experience less enjoyable, particularly in PvP. I don't know how true that is for the 4* tier. I agree the current state of affairs is not ideal for a new player looking to optimize their competitive edge but it's exactly for that reason that I think inter-tier 4*/5* pairings are good for the game since it allows for a greater amount of players to get their foot in the door of the highest tier of play.
tiomono said: DAZ0273 said: fight4thedream said: Are lower end rosters hurt by dilution? Only if their main priority is to champ everyone. But this isn't exclusively a 4* tier problem. The 5* tier also has this issue to a lesser extent but ironically the stakes are higher in the 5* tier as champing the "wrong" 5* characters will drastically make a player's experience less enjoyable, particularly in PvP. I don't know how true that is for the 4* tier. I agree the current state of affairs is not ideal for a new player looking to optimize their competitive edge but it's exactly for that reason that I think inter-tier 4*/5* pairings are good for the game since it allows for a greater amount of players to get their foot in the door of the highest tier of play. This is an interesting point.I transistioned to a champion 4* player with X-Force Wolverine, Luke Cage, Mordo and then Wasp (pre-buff) during the period of "meta" Cap Marvel, Medusa, Gamora, R4G and Vulture. I am reasonably confident that the bad RNG handed to me slowed my progress but each of these characters (and especially Wasp post buff) could get me to at least 575 in PvP so you could argue the toss whether having the "meta" would have advanced me faster. Probably in PvE it would have but not enough to have an impact.I am currently waiting to go to the 5* tier. So far I have Cable. That is NOT happening. There is no question however that a champed Kitty would massively influence my game strategies as I have the 4* assorted kit all ready to go.Given that a new player need only really chase a champed 4* Juggernaut, R4G and Bishop to put out a "competetive" (I don't even think Worthy Cap is necessary) PvP team with just a non optimal Kitty Pryde who has a couple of yellow, dilution suddenly doesn't look like a problem.However...each new 4* does make even getting those guys covered more difficult and as shards are glacial pace, I think new players may still struggle with dilution. I keep seeing people say shards are glacial or slow. Aren't they literally 1% slower than bonus heros on average? I get that I'm in the minority on these forums for liking shards even as is. It still somewhat amazes me just how much disdain there is for them. I feel they could even give the average player more hope in getting what they wanted from the game instead of the total "hiding behind the rng curtain" that was bonus heros.
DAZ0273 said: tiomono said: DAZ0273 said: fight4thedream said: Are lower end rosters hurt by dilution? Only if their main priority is to champ everyone. But this isn't exclusively a 4* tier problem. The 5* tier also has this issue to a lesser extent but ironically the stakes are higher in the 5* tier as champing the "wrong" 5* characters will drastically make a player's experience less enjoyable, particularly in PvP. I don't know how true that is for the 4* tier. I agree the current state of affairs is not ideal for a new player looking to optimize their competitive edge but it's exactly for that reason that I think inter-tier 4*/5* pairings are good for the game since it allows for a greater amount of players to get their foot in the door of the highest tier of play. This is an interesting point.I transistioned to a champion 4* player with X-Force Wolverine, Luke Cage, Mordo and then Wasp (pre-buff) during the period of "meta" Cap Marvel, Medusa, Gamora, R4G and Vulture. I am reasonably confident that the bad RNG handed to me slowed my progress but each of these characters (and especially Wasp post buff) could get me to at least 575 in PvP so you could argue the toss whether having the "meta" would have advanced me faster. Probably in PvE it would have but not enough to have an impact.I am currently waiting to go to the 5* tier. So far I have Cable. That is NOT happening. There is no question however that a champed Kitty would massively influence my game strategies as I have the 4* assorted kit all ready to go.Given that a new player need only really chase a champed 4* Juggernaut, R4G and Bishop to put out a "competetive" (I don't even think Worthy Cap is necessary) PvP team with just a non optimal Kitty Pryde who has a couple of yellow, dilution suddenly doesn't look like a problem.However...each new 4* does make even getting those guys covered more difficult and as shards are glacial pace, I think new players may still struggle with dilution. I keep seeing people say shards are glacial or slow. Aren't they literally 1% slower than bonus heros on average? I get that I'm in the minority on these forums for liking shards even as is. It still somewhat amazes me just how much disdain there is for them. I feel they could even give the average player more hope in getting what they wanted from the game instead of the total "hiding behind the rng curtain" that was bonus heros. Possibly it is psychological but it feels slow. Not counting the retrospective rewards which are a different thing, shards have so far brought me I think 1 or 2 4* cover to date just from acquisition of shards from cover packs being opened. It feels slow.I'm not sure I would call my opinion "disdain" but YMMV.
tiomono said: @Vhailorx I still feel the colorless aspect of the shard system is very valuable. I had a character get up to 23 saved covers before I could champ them before. That's the kind of very rare example that sticks in your mind and sours a person on rng pretty hard. With shards everytime I get enough for a cover it is one guaranteed step to champing them sooner than under an rng system. Which is why I feel shards do help dillution a bit better than bonus heros.
Reecoh said: tiomono said: @Vhailorx I still feel the colorless aspect of the shard system is very valuable. I had a character get up to 23 saved covers before I could champ them before. That's the kind of very rare example that sticks in your mind and sours a person on rng pretty hard. With shards everytime I get enough for a cover it is one guaranteed step to champing them sooner than under an rng system. Which is why I feel shards do help dillution a bit better than bonus heros. I think it says something about the design of the system when the first cover you get from a feeder is in fact a colored cover and not shards. Seems like the earlier rewards are what you'd want to be colorless...
Vhailorx said: Reecoh said: tiomono said: @Vhailorx I still feel the colorless aspect of the shard system is very valuable. I had a character get up to 23 saved covers before I could champ them before. That's the kind of very rare example that sticks in your mind and sours a person on rng pretty hard. With shards everytime I get enough for a cover it is one guaranteed step to champing them sooner than under an rng system. Which is why I feel shards do help dillution a bit better than bonus heros. I think it says something about the design of the system when the first cover you get from a feeder is in fact a colored cover and not shards. Seems like the earlier rewards are what you'd want to be colorless... Yes, this choice gives away the whole the whole game IMO. On the very day they rolled out the new shard system champion rewards, theoretically the long awaited solution to bad cover rng, I got 1x blue cable and archangel covers. Both of which are now saved thanks to my 5/x/x cover distribution for both of those characters. But because all that extra flexibility "has to come from somewhere" (according to demi/d3 and the white knights), I also get to enjoy fewer bonus covers AND less Iso/HP from my 2* and 3* farms. . .By grabthar's hammer, what a savings!
tiomono said: I keep seeing people say shards are glacial or slow. Aren't they literally 1% slower than bonus heros on average? I get that I'm in the minority on these forums for liking shards even as is. It still somewhat amazes me just how much disdain there is for them. I feel they could even give the average player more hope in getting what they wanted from the game instead of the total "hiding behind the rng curtain" that was bonus heros.
KGB said: tiomono said: I keep seeing people say shards are glacial or slow. Aren't they literally 1% slower than bonus heros on average? I get that I'm in the minority on these forums for liking shards even as is. It still somewhat amazes me just how much disdain there is for them. I feel they could even give the average player more hope in getting what they wanted from the game instead of the total "hiding behind the rng curtain" that was bonus heros. It's 1% less overall or 20% fewer when viewed in terms of bonus heroes (4% vs 5% is 4/5ths).In the 3* tier I earn thousands of tokens a year so 1% less adds up to potentially 1 extra max champed 3* on my farm. That's a fair amount of lost resources. Then factor in the 4* and 5* draws (way fewer obviously) and depending on how much you play, it could be a hundred or more 4* covers in a year.KGB
It's not 1% though. If consider only legendary tokens, and assume you opened enough for the bonus hero rate to converge to the advertised probabilities, then the new system will give you ~ 20% fewer 5* covers and 12% fewer 4* covers.
Those numbers add up quite quickly, and the pain was exacerbated by bonus heroes being the last reliable way to cover new characters fast.
jamesh said: tiomono said: DAZ0273 said: fight4thedream said: Are lower end rosters hurt by dilution? Only if their main priority is to champ everyone. But this isn't exclusively a 4* tier problem. The 5* tier also has this issue to a lesser extent but ironically the stakes are higher in the 5* tier as champing the "wrong" 5* characters will drastically make a player's experience less enjoyable, particularly in PvP. I don't know how true that is for the 4* tier. I agree the current state of affairs is not ideal for a new player looking to optimize their competitive edge but it's exactly for that reason that I think inter-tier 4*/5* pairings are good for the game since it allows for a greater amount of players to get their foot in the door of the highest tier of play. This is an interesting point.I transistioned to a champion 4* player with X-Force Wolverine, Luke Cage, Mordo and then Wasp (pre-buff) during the period of "meta" Cap Marvel, Medusa, Gamora, R4G and Vulture. I am reasonably confident that the bad RNG handed to me slowed my progress but each of these characters (and especially Wasp post buff) could get me to at least 575 in PvP so you could argue the toss whether having the "meta" would have advanced me faster. Probably in PvE it would have but not enough to have an impact.I am currently waiting to go to the 5* tier. So far I have Cable. That is NOT happening. There is no question however that a champed Kitty would massively influence my game strategies as I have the 4* assorted kit all ready to go.Given that a new player need only really chase a champed 4* Juggernaut, R4G and Bishop to put out a "competetive" (I don't even think Worthy Cap is necessary) PvP team with just a non optimal Kitty Pryde who has a couple of yellow, dilution suddenly doesn't look like a problem.However...each new 4* does make even getting those guys covered more difficult and as shards are glacial pace, I think new players may still struggle with dilution. I keep seeing people say shards are glacial or slow. Aren't they literally 1% slower than bonus heros on average? I get that I'm in the minority on these forums for liking shards even as is. It still somewhat amazes me just how much disdain there is for them. I feel they could even give the average player more hope in getting what they wanted from the game instead of the total "hiding behind the rng curtain" that was bonus heros. It's not 1% though. If consider only legendary tokens, and assume you opened enough for the bonus hero rate to converge to the advertised probabilities, then the new system will give you ~ 20% fewer 5* covers and 12% fewer 4* covers.Those numbers add up quite quickly, and the pain was exacerbated by bonus heroes being the last reliable way to cover new characters fast.
Kolence said: OK, once again, though I'm pretty sure I've seen someone post this soon after the shards threads started. Heroics used to give BH every 20 pulls (not every 20 3* or 20 4*).The store says odds are ~1:16 and ~1:5 for 4* and 3*. That means every 21 BH you got, 16 were 3* and 5 were 4*.21 BH would take 420 pulls and give 5 bonus 4* which is worth 2000 shards, and 16 bonus 3* which is worth 4800 shards. With shards, 420 pulls gives 1260 shards for 4* (37% less) and 4200 shards for 3* (12.5% less).
tiomono said: Kolence said: OK, once again, though I'm pretty sure I've seen someone post this soon after the shards threads started. Heroics used to give BH every 20 pulls (not every 20 3* or 20 4*).The store says odds are ~1:16 and ~1:5 for 4* and 3*. That means every 21 BH you got, 16 were 3* and 5 were 4*.21 BH would take 420 pulls and give 5 bonus 4* which is worth 2000 shards, and 16 bonus 3* which is worth 4800 shards. With shards, 420 pulls gives 1260 shards for 4* (37% less) and 4200 shards for 3* (12.5% less). Those numbers are an average though. I guarantee if every player made 420 pulls under bonus heros there would be wildly different results. That makes some players feel great and others quit. Shards gives guaranteed equal rewards for equal effort for every player. Bonus heros did not.
Vhailorx said: tiomono said: Kolence said: OK, once again, though I'm pretty sure I've seen someone post this soon after the shards threads started. Heroics used to give BH every 20 pulls (not every 20 3* or 20 4*).The store says odds are ~1:16 and ~1:5 for 4* and 3*. That means every 21 BH you got, 16 were 3* and 5 were 4*.21 BH would take 420 pulls and give 5 bonus 4* which is worth 2000 shards, and 16 bonus 3* which is worth 4800 shards. With shards, 420 pulls gives 1260 shards for 4* (37% less) and 4200 shards for 3* (12.5% less). Those numbers are an average though. I guarantee if every player made 420 pulls under bonus heros there would be wildly different results. That makes some players feel great and others quit. Shards gives guaranteed equal rewards for equal effort for every player. Bonus heros did not. That doesn't argue in favor of shards though. Some people would get very bad BH luck, but if they pulled long enough than, like everyone else, it would average out. Shards means no one gets good or bad rng, and EVERYONE is a little worse off than under bh (unless, I suppose, they have a very good character stuck at 5/5/2 and no viable alternatives in the meantime). Shards, as implemented, is just a bad deal for players.And I say that as someone who has had JJ stuck at 3/8/3 for almost 2 years now (yes, I somehow managed to pull multiple useless black covers for her from LTs, but only AFTER cs coverswaps ended. I had really tinykitty luck with her). But this BH/shards discussion is way off topic for this thread.