As new characters are added to the game, we can add new columns/costs/options:
Latest Legends (remain 25 CP or 1 LT):
5* → 3 most recent
4* → 12 most recent (or fractional most recent as the character compendium grows)
Journeyman Legends (remain 20 CP):
5* → 3 middle-recency characters per release date (currently will become BlackSuit-Spiderman, Green Goblin and overlap Phoenix)
4* → 12 middle-recency (or fractional most recent as the character compendium grows)
As the 4* & 5* compendium grows, this may need to be broken down into subsequently more tiers… general principle, older characters are cheaper CP, overlap as needed to keep odds at 15% 5* or more if Developers have pitty)
Classic Legends (remain 15 CP):
5* → The Original 3 : Silver Surfer, Woldverine, Phoenix
4* → 12 oldest 4* per release date (or fractional most recent as the character compendium grows)
Alternative to decreasing Classic Costs ## → increase Odds for 5* as they have been in the game so long, this will support those loyal customers who have been as unfortunate as I have with the RNG [630 pulls/CP cash-in resulted in 33 5* covers ~5.2% only 4 total OML covers … no complaints, I just haven’t had the luck on my side that many others have].
I feel this dynamic will help people who are trying to finish out their older 5* or 4* characters and avoids all of the dilution.
Just stratify the options more as new releases come-in
Incentivize the cost of older characters
Eliminate redundancy of older characters when drawing “Latest Legends”, albeit at a justifiably higher cost.
Thoughts/comments/suggestions???
P.S. For years we have been posting suggestions, and our community player-base has had phenomenal suggestions, but rarely do I see player suggestions implemented.
Do Developers ever even read/consider these type of posts? …
The problem with tying the 4*'s into the age thing as well is that everyone wants newer 4*'s (plus others depending on your luck or the ones you have champed) and forcing them to have to choose between possibly getting usable 5*'s and building 4*'s seems like a harsh one.
With the amount of 4*'s there are now, they should do something where we can choose to exclude a certain amount of 4*'s from an LT.
As far as 5*'s, I don’t think the naming works, journeyman sounds low quality and you still lack scalability as they add more 5*'s, so maybe they just call them generations or seasons with all the older generations only having 3 characters each and costing 20 cp like they do now.
Given that you still need a decent amount of covers to make a 5* usable, they could bring out a featured 5* LT token, each day that token would have double the normal chance of a specific 5* so people would have a bit less rng to screw them over.
Beyond the above stuff, everyone should have an unlucky LT counter, miss out on a 5* 9 times in a row and your 10th will be a certain 5*, the counter would reset if you got one in the meantime.
I don’t dislike the general idea, but those cheap LTs are going to have mostly weak to middling 4*s in them (Bag Lady, XFW, Starlord). You’d be opening them almost entirely for the shot at OML and maybe Phoenix (lolsurfer) - mostly everything else would just be sold. Bleh.
Well, it will re-balance the RNG luck reliance… and optimistically, de-emphasize the uni-polar design of his character because everyone will eventually have him situated similarly. Therefore, tactics & character selection will adapt globally.
Maybe not make OML cheaper, but make him more easily acquired by those who have turned in the requisite # of tokens and had misfortune
I agree completely with: fmftint
Weak / old 4* should be cheaper.
LT tokens that were first introduced should be distributed as such (where veteran players have acquired the necessary covers on previous 5s and are working on the new) as opposed to complete luck of the draw. I think (per above) reducing the emphasis / imbalance of OML can be accomplished simply by shifting in favor of easier acquisition. Those who have had OML covered heavily (especially those max/champ 550 guys) have had sufficient time to reap the benefits of their good fortune; and allowing those transitioning 5 players who are less lucky to catch up will certainly not affect the crew who have moved on to far-superior characters combinations and strategies. if you are working on classic legends, you most likely are tying-up loose ends… thus old 4s may complete the transitioning crew, old 5 have a discount rate, but lack the relevant 4* progression. For casual players who have a more difficult time building CP/Tokens may find the Classics more appealing because the cheaper cost of entry.
true, which is why they cost significantly more (40% more, but bean counters can set appropriate limits).
That would be great, though they have never done this so it would be unprecedented … welcomed & appreciated, but unprecedented.
agreed, working title… the more poetic can find the appropriate prose
Yes please!!! Immediately green-light this idea!!!… we do it for 4* characters, why not for Legends? The currency / ecosystem already accounts for progression-suppression, this will allow incentive and re-invigorate those who are burning out or feeling dejected by luck
Beyond the above stuff, everyone should have an unlucky LT counter, miss out on a 5* 9 times in a row and your 10th will be a certain 5*, the counter would reset if you got one in the meantime.
[/quote]
I’m still chasing OML and PHX, and the last thing I’d want is a crappy 4* for the 97% of the pulls where I don’t get what I need. 4*s should never be tiered like that, otherwise most people would never cover any of the newer ones.
even if you could chase those two characters down at higher odds (5% vs. 3.8%) while simultaneously paying 75% the cost (15 CP vs. 20 CP)… buy 3 get 1 free?
I just don’t think it would be fair to punish people on the 4*'s available to them just because they have already been punished enough by the RNG not having given them the 5* covers they need to have a usable character.