Toxicadam wrote: IceIX, another way to differentiate veterans from transitionary players is to allow us to apply covers we have won to marginally increase their stats. This would also help with the fact that many veterans are tiring of having to compete to win our 100th Punisher cover that we just end up selling. At least it could go towards increasing his HP or increase dmg. It would bring the thrill back in 'getting lucky' from a token pull. Please stick that idea into someone's ear.
DD-The-Mighty wrote: TL:RD -Is there an eta on/or any further plans to address the significantly low availability of 3 star covers relative to the number of ones we keep getting?
Nonce Equitaur 2 wrote: The comment on OBW's tile match damage does bring up the issue of level-specing. Many people have their characters carefully leveled so that they'll tank for each other in a particularly way. Easiest fix -- some sort of mechanism for putting a character at a lower level. For example, I might want to drop my Hood eight levels for awhile. On the character screen showing the stat block, there could be a "-1" and "+1" button, with the "+1" button initially grayed out. If they press "-1", then the "+1" button is activated, along with "1 available level", which would increment each time "-1" was pressed.
kensterr wrote: Thanks for answering IceIX. Have a good weekend!
Xeonic-Ice wrote: So my question is: Will this level shift make lower covered heroes usable to someone who has a couple maxed 141's or will it largely remain the same?
mohio wrote: kensterr wrote: Thanks for answering IceIX. Have a good weekend! Seconded -thanks for staying here answering some questions so late on friday night. Much appreciated.
NorthernPolarity wrote: So you're saying that roster level is not directly factored in when matchmaking assigns opponents to you? Based off of what you said in the last two comments, the scenario then is that the 3x85 guy is at some random MMR, gets a level 100 3*, which lets him win more games and is enough to propel him to the next, shark infested MMR pool? I've just heard a bunch of stories where the level of 3* seemed like the direct reason why their MMRs jumped as opposed to what you're implying, which is that the 3* won them more games instead.
IceIX wrote: NorthernPolarity wrote: So you're saying that roster level is not directly factored in when matchmaking assigns opponents to you? Based off of what you said in the last two comments, the scenario then is that the 3x85 guy is at some random MMR, gets a level 100 3*, which lets him win more games and is enough to propel him to the next, shark infested MMR pool? I've just heard a bunch of stories where the level of 3* seemed like the direct reason why their MMRs jumped as opposed to what you're implying, which is that the 3* won them more games instead. Having levels of characters directly influence your PVE scaling or PVP MMR directly penalizes you for leveling if you can figure out the right balance ahead of time. So we simply don't do that. But what *does* happen is that since we have these people sticking out at 1* or 2*, they start to accrete around certain MMR values. As more 85s hit this area, there becomes less of a reason for the matchmaker to look outside that to anyone else. So you hit this pocket where all the 85s are all you really see. Then you put in a level 100 3* and with a few wins and maybe a few successful defenses, boom. You've broken the bubble. Now you're sitting out in the big pond beyond, where it's scary. You'll still get a few of your old buddies back in 85 land sometimes as the matchmaker looks backward in MMR a little, but it's also looking into the jaws of that one player who has a whole 25 points in the Tourney, 3x 141s, and low MMR since no one ever wants to attack him at that level.
DD-The-Mighty wrote: Is this how its supposed to work? You get to 100 then get flooded with 141 attacks, preventing you from getting the cover to get your 100 -141, because there is a huge difference between a 100 and a 141. It doesnt sound very appealing at all. Is there a way the mmr figures out that you are not ready to get bombarded by these top squads? aka correct itself. Another major reason i think people sit on 85 3*s until they can unlock and rank enough of them up to 141, because that's what your going up against primarily.
IceIX wrote: DD-The-Mighty wrote: TL:RD -Is there an eta on/or any further plans to address the significantly low availability of 3 star covers relative to the number of ones we keep getting? <Snip> Yep, we're still looking into effective ways to do so. We tested something a few weeks ago with our little Stealth Buy-In No Hold Barred Tournies, and we've got ideas for other ways to do so. What we *don't* want to do is something as heavy handed as what we did with the 2*s and make them available through simple wins. We want 3* progression to be more skill/achievment/I-won-something based rather than grindy-grindy till it drops.
sms4002 wrote: IceIX wrote: DD-The-Mighty wrote: TL:RD -Is there an eta on/or any further plans to address the significantly low availability of 3 star covers relative to the number of ones we keep getting? <Snip> Yep, we're still looking into effective ways to do so. We tested something a few weeks ago with our little Stealth Buy-In No Hold Barred Tournies, and we've got ideas for other ways to do so. What we *don't* want to do is something as heavy handed as what we did with the 2*s and make them available through simple wins. We want 3* progression to be more skill/achievment/I-won-something based rather than grindy-grindy till it drops. Something definitely needs to be done about trying to hone in on the covers you need. I just cashed in nearly 450 tokens (295 standards, 44 heroics and 7 10 packs I think) and I got TWO covers I needed. And one of those was just for a respec. That was 2 months worth of saving for 2 covers i needed. I admittedly only need a few covers at this point but it still is disappointing to really have nothing to look forward to in tokens anymore.
locked wrote: Still reading, but LYCRA MAX OUT YOUR GAZILLION OF 140s, STAT! edit: although the ISO should be the same?.. Still, no reason to underlevel a character now, nice!
IceIX wrote: Nonce Equitaur 2 wrote: Most forumites seem to agree that Magneto is overpowered and deserves a small nerf, but also seem to agree that he isn't being heavily overused. He's not heavily overused in PVP. In PVE on the other hand, he and Good Ol' Tuxedo Man are by far and away the most used characters in the advanced 3* crowd.
Nonce Equitaur 2 wrote: Most forumites seem to agree that Magneto is overpowered and deserves a small nerf, but also seem to agree that he isn't being heavily overused.