True Healing Discussion (Live 6/25)

Twysta

Lego Marvel is pretty fun.

Unknown

There's an old joke that is applicable here (for reasons I'll get to momentarily):

Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

IceIX has stated the goals of this change and denied that it has anything to do with monetary reasons. But this actually has everything to do with money. Let's take his justifications at face value, which make absolutely no sense if money is not a factor. Indeed, he can legitimately say this does not involve encouraging buying health packs and it is still all about money.

IceIX wrote:

One of the intentions with this change is to cut down on things like Prologue Healing, which prolongs play time through something that is pretty obviously just a time intensive process that doesn't involve actual strong gameplay.

(emphasis added)

"actual strong gameplay"

Firstly, what does that mean? How does D3 define it? This is, in many senses, a game of chance and not one with fixed, predictable parameters. No matter how well you play ("actual strong gameplay"?), no one can prevent tremendous cascades that cause your team significant damage. Which, as we all understand, equals time, which further equals money. Even small cascades or mediocre AI gameplay. All damage is time/money.

Nevertheless, "actual strong gameplay" is not a term of art that has a clear meaning or one that is superior to others. D3 is working with their own. I'm working with a different one. Who is right? Why is this a debate that we're having? It leads to the far more important, why this is something within their purview?

Shouldn't be the question they have "what leads to more engagement"? Their goal is to make money. How do they make money? More players playing more. How do they do that? Make the game enjoyable. But that's not what IceIX said. According to IceIX, they are not looking to make the game more enjoyable or, indeed, does he provide any justification for why their goal is "actual strong gameplay."

IceIX wrote:

It's something people do because it's there, much like tanking. It's not something that's fun. It's not something that's enjoyable. It's something that exists and is taken advantage of because of pure efficiency.

(emphasis added)

This is the "debate" about what "actual strong gameplay" means. I love efficiency. It's in a lot of people's nature to learn how to be efficient. To play faster. Do things quickly and effectively. After all, this game is chock full of timers. Why isn't efficiency valuable, exactly?

There are lots of game structures that don't reward efficiency,on the macro level. Think of the World Cup. Each game has a timer, true, but you move on because you win. Not, "win the most games before the timer runs out." Clearly, efficiency in futbol/football/soccer is not a high priority. But here, it's clearly an exceedingly valuable trait, perhaps one of the most important.

Yet it's curious that we are to accept at face value IceIX's statement that "pure efficiency" is not a good thing. I think a lot of players would disagree on that point. And to us, that's a part of "actual strong gameplay." Knowing how the game works and how to work within its parameters to be efficient is our goal.

But, once again, we have to remember, why is this even a concern of theirs? Or rather, why is it made a priority in statements and deeds rather than "lets make this game more enjoyable." Curious.

But here's the TL;DR cut off, where IceIX makes the clearest statement of his company's goals:

IceIX wrote:

What we intend, and continue to drill in on is that we want players to have a broad mix of characters instead of a Top 3 that is their sole team to play with. In Versus this is a bit rougher of a prospect as players that battle have their last winning team placed on defense. So it's not always the best idea to fight with a less powerful defensive team in order to make up more points. That's something that we're always thinking about. We've discussed allowing players to set a defensive team, but with many other games out with similar versus situations this results in a very precise meta-game where an extremely large percentage of the user base chooses the same defenders. That's not a very fun time for most players.

(emphasis added)

First, let's recall that IceIX has implicitly denied that there is a financial element to this decision. So let us imagine this is not a F2P game, which requires alternative monetization schemes, and the goal is a broad mix of characters. How would you do that? Perhaps, give out tokens that will not reveal cards already in the player inventory? Provide more ISO or lower ISO requirements for leveling so characters are more viable more quickly? Obviously, there are many other mechanisms that will allow them to achieve this stated goal if we ignore that alternative monetization schemes are critical. We know that, but IceIX would prefer we ignore the elephant in the room.

Simply put, if the goal is what IceIX stated, then there are a tremendous number of options other than radically revising the healing mechanism. However, many of those options fall away within their current revenue model. Their solution just so happens to lead to additional revenue from health packs. Rather, this solution is the product of a mindset that prioritizes monetization rather than player engagement or enjoyment.

And here he gives the clearest statements of how they've tried to do this (I've separated them into numbered reasons):

IceIX wrote:

However, in Events, we continually buff different characters, and outside of Heroics, still allow for characters to be used that aren't buffed. What we want players to do is
(1) to play with the breadth of their roster instead of using Spider-Man or Black Widow as necessary crutches and only building 3 other characters. This change is intended to result in exactly this as players see that they can't just rely on in-battle healing and look for other ways besides spending Health Packs to continue playing.

Unclear is, why is relying on an in-battle mechanic that they created a bad thing in and of itself? Let me change it around for effect: "This change is intended to result in exactly this as players see that they can't just rely on in-battle DAMAGE and look for other ways besides spending MONEY ON BOOSTS." Not seeing the underlying logic as to why this is such a bad thing and not simply a matter of arbitrarily moving the goal posts.

I know of numerous games where "in-battle healing" is a critical game element and no one seems to have a problem with it. There's no call for changes in BF4 to get rid of med bags. In WoW to eliminate healing. Etc., etc. Healing seems to be a fundamental strategy that everyone seems A-OK with.

Why would IceIX's employer have a problem with it? Is it because damage = time = money? Perhaps.

Perhaps they structured the monetization of this game, in large part, on timers and paying to accelerate them? Perhaps they undermined their own business model, early on, with healers? Hard to say.

IceIX wrote:

(2) We want you to keep playing on your own schedule.

This does exactly the opposite if that, alone, is the goal here. If the goal was to play on our own schedule and money isn't something they considered, why not completely heal my team after every battle? That would reduce my interest in "in-battle healing" and allow me to "keep playing on" my own schedule. But it wasn't chosen, because?

IceIX wrote:

(3) We want you to play with multiple characters. Doing so keeps players on their toes and making them think of character combinations that they wouldn't otherwise go with if they weren't forced out of their single set of heroes.

Put yourself in the developers shoes for a moment and you see a lot of people using the same character combinations. That's a problem! Do you take a macro or micro approach? Do you change the core gameplay elements or do you address specific characters? Do you go for radical revisions with unknown effects or targeted changes? Do you go with unknown repercussions or predictable gameplay adjustments? Some might argue that making healing cost a few more AP per heal, or lower its efficacy, could work.

Or you could just utterly change the game in critical ways that will have tremendous repercussions down the road. What would you do?

TL;DR Part 2:
This change makes no sense from almost any angle other than one critical one:
To protect the original monetization model and to thwart methods of circumventing it. Without these critical elements, the change makes no sense whatsoever based on IceIX stated goals.

Which brings me back to the joke. We all get that it doesn't make one look good to admit they'll do something to make a buck. It's unseemly and embarrassing, and terrible PR. IceIX and his employer don't want to say this is about making money (Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!), but upon review, it is the only thing that makes any sense as a justification.

Unknown

"roster diversity... now how can we achieve that?" D3 dev bot says as he fumbles through the latest issue of the marvel puzzle quest inquisitor, the day's headline reading "players give great advice but are ignored!"

"well i guess i could completely change how healing works. yes, that will do it..." murmurs D3 dev bot, lazily typing in the code in the hamster-box, failing to notice the hamster half dead, waving a white flag.

in another location, random player who has more sense than D3 dev bot muses to himself, "what if they spent more time making all the heroes playable, thus adding incredible amounts of roster diversity instead of making major gameplay changes that no one wants? wouldn't that encourage roster diversity?"

meanwhile, all lazy daken and patch players wrinkle their faces with mischievous smiles while the xforce players cry into their soup. still.

Clintman

I am dying laughing that the original post has so many negative downvotes that you have to click on it to read it.

Unknown

IceIX wrote:

ZenBrillig wrote:

Another question - in most systems that I've seen with this 'temporary HP' mechanism (which admittedly is mainly MMORPGs and tabletops), you can exceed a character's max HP. Will that be the case here?

The mechanics are there for abilities to overcharge health, yes. With these particular abilities - Spider-Man, Black Widow, and She-Hulk, no. It wouldn't make sense for a breather from combat to put you at 110% health.

Read the entire thread to make sure no one else had addressed this: It also doesn't make sense for bandages to heal your wounds for a little while and then stop working. Maybe if they were web-painkillers...

It feels unseemly to use flavor text to justify rules. Why don't we just not do it?

The developers don't run theme tournaments anymore because they don't sell covers. Okay, fine--but if the goal is roster diversity, the PvP flavor of the week strategy is exactly antithetical to your goal.

I use huge swaths of my roster in PvE. It's fun. I'll run every character I have into the ground because there's no real risk involved in losing a match. Sometimes you happen upon a rewarding or unexpectedly powerful combination. Sometimes you even use Daredevil. Eliminate the absurd levels of risk and cost associated with PvP competitions, and I'll gladly play with my diverse roster.

Jonny1Punch

TRUE HEALING?!? How about "TRUE RIP-OFF". This is absolutely disgusting and if I ever wanted to rage-quit it would be as soon as I read that update a few minutes ago. I love my alliance and this community too much to quit but WOW. This has instantly killed my anticipation for she-hulk now as well. I'm sorry to be negative here guys as I know these forums need more positivity but omg this is a truly repulsive downgrade. What a slap in the face. You killed my Spidey now my recently upgraded OBW is next to useless as I invested in her for prologue healing....... I was fine spending my hard earned cash on covers and shields etc but this is beyond overboard. This current pve will have us all going through healthpaks like crazy too....... What a huge,colossal,hulk-handed slap in all of our faces.

Sorry for the rant guys/gals I don't post much but we really need to rally together and let it be known we won't keep taking this abuse. This game is already super expensive as it is just to stay moderately competetive.

Unknown

Ice, you guys need to spend less time removing features people use to make the game more fun and/or less unfun. Spend more time making the game more interesting and varied instead.

With tanking mostly dead and many people starting pvps with opponent 141s, now you want to take out healing too? How much time and effort do you expect people to spend per event?

You are heading down the wrong path. Turn back! Turn back!

Though in my case, you basically already successfully drove me from the game with the sharding and mmr changes.

Unknown

ZenBrillig wrote:

Pjoe0211 wrote:

the spiderman nerf most people were ok with

Please send me the URL to the forum you were reading, because most people were apoplectic about the Spidey nerf.

Spider nerf was something a lot of people wanted. The way the Devs handled it (making Spider lowest tier character) is what we disagree with.

Bugpop wrote:

I really don't like the way this forum has turned into a hate frenzy directed at IceIX. This used to be a civil community. Occasionally one of us would step out of line but simple reminder from another forumite was sufficient for the forum to become civil.

I'm disgusted with the lack of community here right now. Be civil.

We are behaving in same manner as the Devs. If someone keeps on lying in Your face and pissing on Your boots, wouldn't You get angry?

Regalis wrote:

They've been tanking their Steam rating for the past 6 months.

http://steamcharts.com/app/234330

Clearly it's still too high, so they have to roll out more tinykitty like this.

That is SOMETHING! 21% drop in March is just wow! On the other hand - I see the Steam users are a small minority

Unknown

A_B-istooshort wrote:

TL;DR Part 2:
This change makes no sense from almost any angle other than one critical one:
To protect the original monetization model and to thwart methods of circumventing it. Without these critical elements, the change makes no sense whatsoever based on IceIX stated goals.

Which brings me back to the joke. We all get that it doesn't make one look good to admit they'll do something to make a buck. It's unseemly and embarrassing, and terrible PR. IceIX and his employer don't want to say this is about making money (Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!), but upon review, it is the only thing that makes any sense as a justification.

TL;DR part 2? You need to change your handle to TL;DR-istoolong

Unknown

Nemek wrote:

kensterr wrote:

Or I can try other Marvel games which are somewhat ****:
http://marvel.com/games

Whoa whoa whoa...I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but this is just going too far.

I'd recommend LEGO Marvel or Marvel Heroes to just about any Marvel fan that was even somewhat interested in the represented genres.

Both are awesome.

And we can't forget about DC.

Injustice: Gods Among Us is pretty good both on mobile and on Steam.
And all the Batman: Arkham blablah are excellent.

Spoit

stephen43084 wrote:

Congratulations. We finally get communication, and we shoot the message and messenger for 14+ pages.
Really??? People need to decide do they want communication about the game and changes, or do they just want good news.

Whether you agree with the explanation for the change, at least one was provided, it made sense, and it wasn't the type of ninja change we loathe.

By the way,most of us actually got hooked on the game before we even knew ofobw or could heal our characters. The new paradigm seems to urge smarter game play, and less dependence on grinding and playing the same fight with the same team over and over and over. There's a lot if people getting burnt out in seasons and omnipresent events. We can't say the game needs to change, but then fight every change.

This is why we lack credibility with the developers. It's simple do we want them to "try" and improve the game or not?

How does the new paradigm discourage grinding? If anything it enourages people to do clears every 2 hours and change, which is even more grinding than a clear plus doubling up on the essentials and a few high point normals every 12 hours. And PvP hasn't changed wrt to having the same fights over and over and over, and is just as discouraging to not constantly using the same team as it ever was.

And most of us started way before OBW was even in the game to begin with. And there was still prologue healing, with the loner spidey. A few hundred Health at a time. Uphill both ways in the snow

Unknown

stephen43084 wrote:

Congratulations. We finally get communication, and we shoot the message and messenger for 14+ pages.
Really??? People need to decide do they want communication about the game and changes, or do they just want good news.

Whether you agree with the explanation for the change, at least one was provided, it made sense, and it wasn't the type of ninja change we loathe.

By the way,most of us actually got hooked on the game before we even knew ofobw or could heal our characters. The new paradigm seems to urge smarter game play, and less dependence on grinding and playing the same fight with the same team over and over and over. There's a lot if people getting burnt out in seasons and omnipresent events. We can't say the game needs to change, but then fight every change.

This is why we lack credibility with the developers. It's simple do we want them to "try" and improve the game or not?

People have been generally grateful that IceIX is posting stuff, not sure where you're seeing this shoot the messenger business.

"We can't say the game needs to change, but then fight every change. It's simple do we want them to "try" and improve the game or not?"
Instead of speaking in generalities can you defend this change with substance? Because again, for the most part, people aren't just complaining for the sake of complaining. They are putting actual thought in their responses and voicing their concern. Of course emotions will run high but don't let that take away from the substance in their posts.

Mawtful

I've been looking at this from another perspective:

Months and months of "Nerf OBW! She is OP!" threads.
demiurge nerf OBW. (Well, she's collateral in the healing nerf, but you never said that's not what you wanted.)
And now there will be months and months of "NOOOO! Why did you nerf OBW?!" threads.

It's like those genies that will grant your wish but purposefully misconstrue your words. Be careful what you wish for next.

Unknown

kidicarus wrote:

If you wanted to remove prologue healing, wouldn't it have made more sense to just remove prologue healing - ie healing not carrying over from the prologue - I'm sure that's not too difficult to do.

another great idea instead of changing the entire healing system. keep healing done to the event it was done in. simple.

yogi_

Is the opposite of true healing false healing?

When things should be getting simpler, it goes the other way...

Why not just rework the characters to do whatever the ultimate outcome of what you want them to do is. If you want to rework the features of OBW, Spider, She-Hulk, go right ahead, but this two types of healing thing is kinda silly.

Unknown

atlasspeaks wrote:

kidicarus wrote:

If you wanted to remove prologue healing, wouldn't it have made more sense to just remove prologue healing - ie healing not carrying over from the prologue - I'm sure that's not too difficult to do.

another great idea instead of changing the entire healing system. keep healing done to the event it was done in. simple.

Because that was never the goal.

There was the claim that prologue healing was "the problem to be fixed." It never was.

There was the claim that a lack of roster diversity was "the problem to be fixed." It never was.

The real problem to be fixed is that D3P doesn't want you to heal your characters without paying money for it.

Unknown

so... what is wrong with D3 wanting to make more money?

and seriously, you think the fallout will be better if they came out and say "we did it for the money". IMO, that will be worse. sure this change suck, but if it sucks for everyone, then you aint really shortchanged.

Before you go into how this is turning the game into P2W... look at Xmen... if they are legit, they are already P2W with their constant hopping. so... nothing's changed

Twysta

yogi_

IceIX wrote:

We want you to keep playing on your own schedule. We want you to play with multiple characters.

As opposed to whose schedule???? How is this even relevant?

In regards to multiple characters, clearly many people feel there are not enough worthwhile ones to play with, as evidence by numerous threads all over the place. Again, continuous and clear character balancing would much of this.

Unknown

oh another thing D3 devs if you are reading.

one of the main reasons stated by icex for this healing change is about roster diversity. i am ALL for roster diversity, because as it stands now there is very little. all top 2* teams run the same comps and all top 3* teams run the same comps. everyone rushes to get the most blatantly overpowered 2* and 3* heroes to 85 and 141, leaving the rest of their roster at very low levels, with almost no hope of realistically leveling them to a playable state in any reasonable amount of time, especially with the ever increasing difficultly of getting iso. this leads down a very easy-to-understand logic road. if you spent time balancing all the existing heroes instead of pushing out new ones (who irritatingly tend to have the same R/G/Y combo or no new color combos) then people would be encouraged to level all their heroes evenly instead of rushing only the overpowered ones, thus, *GASPS* encouraging roster diversity!!

is it really that hard of a concept? i know a usable bag man sounds like heresy, but it's the solution. really.