I’m against the very idea of capping, as well as a number of “solutions” proposed in this thread. Superficial “solutions” cost time and money to implement, and if they don’t address the core issues (which caps don’t), you end up even worse off than before.
==
MPQ is a loot box game. Random rewards and reward structure for different event types means players end up with different optimal routes in practice. (So though 3* Doctor Strange, Iron Man, and Hawkeye are 3* priorities and 4* Rocket and Groot and Medusa are 4* priorities, any particular player in the early 2-3* transition may not have a 13-cover Iron Man, or for the early 3*-4* transition Rocket and Groot.) Without the ability to stick very closely to an “optimal” solution, different players don’t feel pressured into following a single simple path, so the game remains interesting in that players adapt to their roster in particular rather than simply following a single “optimal” path that would be an onerous chore - or so the theory goes.
That said, the proposed “solutions” don’t make MPQ any less a loot box game, they simply change a few details around. And though one could argue these changes would contribute to player perception of “fairness”, I say in the end they wouldn’t really matter.
Take the concept of a cap. A lower bound is defined that affects players that would perform worse than a statistical “average”. This would reduce the - what is it, 500 Latest Legends pulls for a 99% chance at three fully covered 5*s? So it would seem that this is an improvement, and in some sense it is.
But what really happened? A player’s already investing hundreds of hours or thousands of dollars to get to the point that they’re stocking 500 LL tokens. If the player only needs 400 or even 300, on paper maybe that seems like a significant difference. But practically, we’re talking about, say, thirty hours a week for a solid year, with perhaps a few hundred dollars invested on top of that. Players that wanted to make the 5* transition are “hooked” anyways.
What’s the incentive on the part of the developers to change the system? What’s the incentive on the part of the players to change the system? Instituting any sort of cap still leaves MPQ as a loot box game; some players will still perform worse than statistically normal.
What I’m getting at is, a vague “cap” solution serves nobody. The question is, what is the desired rate of payout? How long should it take a player to make the 5* transition, given different player circumstances and preferences? Should a player that plays thirty hours a week, that spends $200 USD over the course of a year, be able to make that transition at the end of that year? What about a player that puts in the same amount of time, but that doesn’t have as much control over their schedule for optimal clear times? What about a player that puts in the time and money investment but doesn’t study how to play optimally?
Then I’d say - consider the rewards systems that are in place, and event structures. Mind I don’t intend to criticize the developers; there are factors I’m leaving off mentioning here (such as costs of servers and trying to spread players out, monetization and licensing costs, development and research costs, &c - suffice it to say I’m leaving a lot out.) But I think considering the current reward structure, character dilution, &c, it comes down to something like this:
- Players spend a long time in the 3*-4* transition, and even longer in the 4*-5* transition. But except for the first relatively few key characters in a tier, there is not much perceived benefits to additional character covers.
Specifically - let’s say a new player is in the 2*-3* transition. Say that player reads some guides, say they get 3* Iron Man, 3* Doctor Strange, 3* Hawkeye. Good, now they can handle a lot of PvE. Now let’s add in Kamala Khan, Captain America, Hood, Black Widow, Thanos, Deadpool - which each new key addition, players gain unique abilities / combinations to their roster. But only to a point. Sure, 3* Magneto and Blade are probably good additions, but what about Punisher? Sentry? Vision? At some point, additional 3s really don’t mean much to a 3 player; they’re not earning better rewards for those characters (apart from champion rewards), and because some have such niche use they’re just not used.
Then let’s say the 3*-4* transition. 4* Rocket and Groot adds speed; 4* Medusa adds durability. But then again, you add in a few more - Gamora, Vulture, and a few others - then what? At some point, a player really doesn’t care that they have 4* Sandman or 4* Elektra because again - there’s no rewards (apart from champion rewards), and because they’re so niche they’re not used.
What I’m saying is there’s a perceived lack of significance to in-game gains at certain points in MPQ, and I think this perceived lack of progress is frustrating to some players. I don’t say it sums up the reason for asking for caps, but I think it’s a factor, and I think it’s something that should be addressed. But note a “cap” does nothing to address this.
- Events like Deadpool Daily Quest Crash of the Titans, and SHIELD Training help a player transition - if not so much with specific covers, at least with infrastructure. But with character dilution, it has become much harder for a player to get any particular 3* or 4*.
Meanwhile, more and more and more and more characters are added to the game, and especially a new player comes to realize - they’re paying more for roster slots, they need more and more roster slots, will they ever catch up?
Again, a “cap” does nothing to combat this perception - or perhaps I should call it “reality”, because that’s what it is.
- Players that research how to make the 5* transition into three thirteen-cover 5*s realize there’s a huge investment. Players that don’t research still realize there’s a huge investment involved.
A “cap” does address this in part. But really a cap is horribly horribly, well, I don’t want to say “so what”. But really, so what? You pull sixteen Wasp covers and four Okoye covers, is this okay? No, you still got screwed, you know? And now, instead of players looking at the core loot box mechanic and considering whether they want so much RNG loot box mechanisms in a game with ever-increasing dilution, now some players THINK they’re happy because they’re caps. Oh, maybe those players might come around and realize that caps WEREN’T ENOUGH in a few months. But in the meantime, what? You have a good deal of developer time and money going into a proposed “solution” that in the end didn’t really solve anything - and once the “solution” is implemented, well, nobody that actually was part of getting the “solution” implemented wants to say “hey, this really wasn’t such a great solution after all.”
So what happens is, the REAL issues aren’t addressed. Everyone will clap their hands and say “yay! what a wonderful victory!” but what really got solved? Well that’s politics for you. But instead of superficial solutions that are an easy sell, maybe some hard infrastructure solutions should be considered.
==
Remembering that the developers are working under restrictions and circumstances we don’t know about, and have information we don’t have access to that may inform their decision making process - I’d propose the following. Though to be clear I’m not saying they are “solutions”; that would imply they are “better” than what’s already in place, and considering all the data I don’t have access to, who knows if they’re actually better or not? But anyways -
-
More SHIELD training, a lot more. And some variety of SHIELD training for 3s as well. As it is, there really isn’t much incentive for a player to collect more and more and more and more and more characters, in terms of rewards. You earn HP in events, then you have to keep spending HP on new characters, then you end up never using most of those characters, and those characters don’t even get you anything much most of the time - and consider how much HP and iso and all it takes to level those investments, it just feels a bit pointless. On the other hand, if players were regularly using different 4s and 3*s and earning rewards - it might be a bit different.
-
Rotating limited selection of non-boosted characters giving bonus iso and tokens when used. (So for each event there would be featured characters (super boosted), boosted characters, and “bonus” characters that gave tokens and/or iso). Rather than players feeling so pressured to use boosted characters (if at all), instead there’s a question of payouts, which I think may be more incentivizing.
-
More player ability to customize what covers they get. (This, particularly with dilution of ever more characters being added to the game). Increasing the odds on gold-starred favorited characters would do nicely.
Say there are seventy 4s in the game, and one in twenty tokens awards a favorited 4. At that rate, it takes about 202 tokens to get thirteen covers on a particular 4* - and of course, there’s no guarantee one would get 544 or 553. The more 4s are released, the higher that number gets, the harder it is for a player to champion a particular 4, and make progress in the 3*-4* transition.
- Ability to find and select each character (that is, each character of a three character team) by typing in text to search (by hero name and by affiliation), and being able to select from user-defined teams. As it is now, it’s crazy trying to keep track of characters of different tiers and boosts and levels changing as every new cover is added. Plus the game stating one has to field an “Avenger” - well really now. Some characters were Avengers in one incarnation but not another, so unless you’re really a superfan, who can keep track?
), so the resulting range is a bit narrower. Adjust any part of formulas and odds so the overall rates are acceptable for the devs and “bean counters”, just not so drastic a difference between really unlucky pulls and the luckier ones.