I kinda agree its got to be one of the 4, but I don’t see it, what they’re saying the goal of vaulting is, and the method they chose to go about implementing it is a head-scratcher…
1 - I agree they don’t want to make em mad… Vaulting provides a massive advantage for the very top end that are pulling down 6+ 4s in that they can assure they get all new 4s to 370 before they retire… That’s really the only way I see to factor whales into it… as they don’t need help stomping out those hit hardest by vaulting that are only pulling down 1 4* every other day.
2 - At one point they were throwing stores of the very same format at us, character specific vaults etc… all using the same mechanics and UI, yet they don’t put out an alternative store that everyone is clamoring for, instead they create one that is different from all the other stores in the HfH store that purposely doesn’t do what the vast majority of all these complaints want…
3 - Yup, I can see this, I don’t want to believe it, but then again I’m pretty consistently surprised by adults, in a bad way.
4 - Agree, except there are far better ways to bilk me outta my money, and ways that I’d be far more amenable to that wouldn’t mess with the mechanics of the game… so I dunno… This would be the easiest reason to fall back to, its just that they’re leaving so much opportunity on the table…
I kind of reluctantly agree that something had to happen to end the dilution problem in tokens. However, they threw the baby out with the bathwater when they effectively decreed that “all vaulted characters shall not be available in any token PERIOD.” Not all players hit every single 4* progression target, every single CP progression target, or even play every day. Such players are left with a range of poor choices (hoard for weeks or months; draw tokens as they come knowing that <13 4* will result; resign to their fate; quit).
I know I’m kind of burned out again and think I’m going to scale back to DDQ only for a while again. So my 4* roster will freeze in place, again, only this time some characters may never get unstuck.. I probably should just call it quits.
Much better. Let people explain the why yes or no in the comments rather than having the poller put their own two cents on why you might like it or not.
It’s a great solution for the difficulty of covering new characters, no argument there.
It eats butt if you have old champions that you want to continue growing in power instead of having everyone stuck in the 280s-290s for eternity. I’ve got a 311 Red Hulk that is approaching the ability to go toe-to-toe with 5*s when he’s boosted, but now he’s stuck where he is except once every few months when he’s available as a progression reward. I’m not even counting “vintage tokens” because those are a joke-bordering-on-insulting as a solution.
I’ve posted my proposed solution elsewhere but I’ll repeat it here: make tokens contain the six newest characters, and let us choose the other 6 that appear in tokens out of the same pool that are eligible to be bonus heroes. New characters are still locked in there for about 3 months, which is plenty of time to cover them, and it lets us continue to grow a handful of characters of our choosing.
I guess I should’ve chosen the middle option. Oops.
Increased rewards is not a solution, it’s a band-aid. Obviously, it would be an amazingly popular band-aid (among players), but it is emphatically NOT the solution.
Yes, doubling the number of tokens you get (as an arbitrary example) doubles the number of covers you get for your characters (on average). It does not address the problem that, to fully cover a new character (or any character you don’t have, for that matter) you will need to pull enough 4s so that, on average, you get 13 covers _for every 4 currently in the game._
You want to cover Gamora as soon as she gets into tokens? Nowadays that’ll take about 156 4* draws, or about 183.5 legendary tokens.
No vaulting? You’d be looking at 749.4 tokens on average. That’s 4 times as many tokens. Doubling the rewards wouldn’t have come close (well, it’d be halfway).
Does it make sense to apply supply and demand here? As a tier get’s more dilluted, the cost (both in resources and time) to get it should decrease. If they kept up on this I don’t see why this couldn’t be THE solution.
Flipside of the coin, slowing down releases and/or doing less copying of characters would help with dillusion, just a thought.
Making the tokens cost half as much is the same as handing out twice as many of them (or the resources to buy them).
Also, I’m not sure that’s how supply and demand would apply here. If anything, the supply has gone down (fewer covers of character X available for a fixed number of N draws) and the demand has either stayed the same or gone up, so presumably that would make the cost go up, not down.
Of course that doesn’t make sense either (add more characters to the poll, and then raise the price?) so the only sensible thing is to keep the price (and, on average, the value) the same.
And adjusting the price downwards over time doesn’t help with hoarding, either. All those CP you’ve spent champing 4s? Well we’ve halved the cost of legendary tokens now, so if you’d waited, you could have championed twice as many 4s for the same cost. You think the forum gets upset when champ rewards are changed, oh man.
Vaulting would be pretty good, IF:
1st - Titan DDQ was on daily basis with mandatory 4* given as a reward for the node, OR/AND
2nd - there were legendary token with all 4*s except the 12 newest.
Argument that vaulting is way how to solve 4* dillution is pure lie (otherwise i would be worried about the mental health of the author of this statement). The only thing vaulting does is preventing 4s to farmed for promoting rewards… briefly said, it is pointless to upgrade 4s - just own them for missions where they are mandatory, but forget about farming them for championing rewards (less rewards from 4s = less LTs/CPs = less 4s and 5*s).
Can I ask a serious question here? And I’ll put it out there for everyone, not just the person I quoted. Why is there this assumption that everyone wants to cover characters as fast as possible?And why is there an assumption that the player base is more interested in new characters vs old? Is MPQ that big of a competitive scene? I mean, they don’t even give away real prizes. I just don’t get the rush. Especially since the only way to level up characters is thru ISO, which is always seemingly in short supply. I just feel like this game company never had a long term plan for this game and lucked into a goldmine. They want to keep it running but have no idea how, and the stuff they’re throwing against the wall isn’t sticking very well.
Their metrics show that people pay money for shiny things. People like to play with their shiny new toys, and so getting them covered more quickly is preferable. This is what the metrics that the devs have are telling them. Additionally, newer players (players with few or no maxed 4s) benefit from champing 4s sooner so that they can compete at a higher level earlier.
People play because it’s fun. Winning is also fun, and so people are naturally competitive - even if there are no real prizes offered beyond in-game rewards.
There are many ways to play this game and enjoy it. Im in social groups that have people that just got their first 4* cover (not first champed character, first cover ever) and they are just finding out about the vaulting situation and are upset because they have a very small chance of ever getting the hero they love.
Just because any of our styles of play our best to us doesn’t make others styles irrelevant. Most of the people that are pro-vault, anit-any changes show the opinion of “this is the way I play, and its the way you must play too.” Thats not the correct way to view the situation.
Ok, so I get the “shiny new toys” aspect. But if you have New Character at 0 covers and Old Character at 0 covers…aren’t they both “shiny new toys” to someone? So why push one over the other instead of offering choice? That question has never been answered by anyone as far as I can tell. Granted, I don’t have access to the same info as the game company. But I would think the metrics would show by giving people choice, they’ll drastically increase their revenue. Like I said, I don’t know, but it seems like common sense to me.
As for the winning/fun part, you’re right and I should have thought about that a little more.
We were trolled by the devs, the lead designer posted a response that was stickied for a while saying that if there is enough feedback they’ll change it… So its pretty much dominated the boards for months now and most of the threads get twisted around into a referendum on vaulting…
If it were just that then D3/Demi would give us options on how to spend the CP or open more stores so I can spend more money on what I actually want… Theres something more sinister or ignorant going on, I am still up in the air as to which it is…
By limiting choice they create an urgency that encourages spending to obtain things before they are no longer attainable. You can see this in the 2 week cover expiration period, their refusal to announce sales ahead of time, etc. This has been their MO for quote some time now - always seeming to favor mechanics that encourage people to spend before they can’t anymore. If you have a choice in rewards you have a choice on spending now or later. They don’t want you to have that choice. They want you to spend now before you lose that ability forever. It’s not ignorant, it’s purposeful. I won’t comment on whether or not it is sinister.
