If Boss Wolf is owned by only 0.5% of players, does that make him unpopular?
I could see a slight revision to this, such as “players are only allowed to pick from their 20% least used heroes” etc. But beside the laughs, I already imagine the tornado of rage on the ofrum after something like this is organized.
But we do need more, more ways to use a variety of our heroes and not limit ourselves to just the handful we are most comfortable with. I keep repeating that every chance I have, as an owner of over a 100 maxed/3.70 heroes, disappointed by the fact that I get to play only about 30% of them to stay relevant and not intentionally lose fights by goofing around.
To be fair I don’t think it is the tournament rules that are the problem but the frequency of the specific set of rules that a particular hero would be good in comes around versus the powering costs for that hero.
For instance Justice might be awesome in a no purple Rush Attack tournament but if that’s only going to roll around once every 50 tournaments I’m not gonna blow 6 Darts on Justice for it. Similarly if an unpopular heroes tourney comes round just as infrequently I’d just play unlevelled heroes than blow the mats.
Which raises an interesting question, what if the ascension and XP requirements for heroes varied by popularity? SGG could for instance use their current data to work out which currently released heroes were underused and give them cheaper ascensions and XP requirements to power up though it would mean newer heroes would have one levelling cost when released which could then change later on that could become both tricky and controversial. Perhaps an alternative way of doing it could be to tie ascension and XP costs to the hero’s mana speed as I think there’s a significant correlation between it and popularity. How would the picture change if Very Fast like Malosi required 6 Darts, Fast like Joon 5 darts, Average like Onatel 3 darts, Slows like Justice 2 darts and Very Slow like Guardian Owl needed just 1 dart? Would give more tactical options especially to newer players whether the power up more slower heroes or fewer faster ones. I mean I’m not a new player but I might spare a thought on someone like Atomos if he were 2 Tonics to ascend assuming my Tonic supply looked anything like my Tabard supply.
But anyway I digressed slightly. Whether or not ascension and XP requirements varied within the same rarity tier I reckon it would help more if certain rule combinations were more frequent by having parallel 3*, 4* and 5* tournaments running each week in a similar style that we have parallel 3*, 4* and 5* Challenge Events so that each rule combination comes 3 times more often.
Thank you for such an insightful post! You gave a lot of interesting ideas. I especially like the idea of running multiple tournaments at the same time to give more frequent usage to some heroes. I hope SG can consider this.
making slow heroes cheaper is a great idea. the delta in power on the specials for slow and fast was very big when the game launched but now there are fast and very fast heroes with more powerful specials than slow heroes! This was always the case with yellow- you could argue Drake has a substantially more powerful special than Justice and is fast- but now it’s also the case with every color.
Making slow heroes cheaper to max would compensate for the fact that they often suck these days.
That said, I would make most season 1 heroes cheaper (some like Lianna and Joon can remain as is) since it isn’t only the slow heroes but also a lot of the fast season 1 heroes who are weak. Some are so weak due to powercreep that unless you have the right exclusive heroes to pair them with them, you’d never use them. (e.g. Elk pretty much only has value if you also have Eve to pair with.)
Agreed, as I was writing the example of AMs to power that perhaps the Season 1 classics should be -1 4* AM (as the converse view is that perhaps there should be a slight increased cost for premium heroes/helps keep F2P in game more) but part of me was thinking I’d waffled on a bit too much and adding it would complicate the idea I was attempting to convey but if anything like this was anything close to a reality rather than my latest brain-fart I’d certainly endorse the slightly cheaper for costs again for the classics.
there are a lot of season 1 heroes I would bring to 3/70 or max if the AMs were cheaper. But 4 materials is still too much I am thinking more like… 1 to 3/70 and 1 to 4/80. Otherwise, even at 4, why bother? No way do I touch Horghall ( even if I had his costume) at 4, not worth it.
That would be interesting. You could use 1/1 legendary heroes(you’d need to be allowed more than 555 power, but I’m guessing that was more of an example than a hard suggestion in power number). You could use 1 really strong hero and 4 weaker ones… it would have a lot of options. You could go really low on troop levels to buy yourself more room, etc…
Max Team Cost would be cool as well. Then it would be nice being able to set up a def of 2 or 3 heroes, too.
Deciding e.g.between 3 deadly threats or 5 average leveled.
I thought of a tournament for players arround lvl30, which may have a few half leveled legends, a few maxed epics and a bunch of maxed rares.
A limit of any kind would force whales to bring their dumped or 3.70s and no one would face hurting p2w threats.
I thought of sth where advanced players have a chance to compete with hard core payers…
Out of curiosity, what is the point of the max team cost? I know that limit increases as you progress, but really, at the start of the game, a player is not going to have maxed 5*s. To me, this suggestion makes some usage out of that stat.
That would be the first time the max team number would actually be used in game!
I like the idea, just give us a maximum teamscore, and see if you field 1, 2 or 5 hero’s and make it a free for all battle.