Are the Devs actively trying to ruin the game?

MarvelMan

Please leave a comment as I truly want to see how people feel. Im legitimately torn between a cash grab and general cluelessness about how these changes are going to affect the amount of time I can play the game, which in turn likely means Ill find something else as its very all in or nothing.

Unknown

It's probably a combination of a cash grab and most devs, outside of Ice, not actually *playing* the game competitively.

Unknown

There's no option to pick -- D3 is not uniform. It has a contingent of excel-sheet guys who chase $$$ and can't tell yellow from purple or count to 3 to make a valid match.

And they do have a bunch of incompetent developers who don't know the basics of designing a client/server architecture yet are doing it. Who don't know how to put together and load-balance a server farm. Who don't know how to handle account data and transactions. How to fix a bug, verify it's gone and announce it. All that really simple, almost trivial stuff. Possibly they had some folks who put together the original 'preview' version with its platform support, graphics and update engine who left long ago.

They also have game designers with head full of ideas on how others are supposed to play -- but who never played a single event and never bothered to use the game interface even for two minutes. (That would be well enough to add most of the commonly required stuff like turn off anims and get rid of flashing at least).

With all that mix there's not even a chance someone could tell the $-chasers how to get their goals in a sustained way or at all, what change will increase the bottom line really.

This evolutionary bunch is not "trying" to ruin the game, they DO ruin the game. Sometimes in small steps sometimes in bigger leaps. Meanwhile some part chasing the $ in the *wrong* way and the rest is simply incompetent.

Unknown

It's a little of everything. I think they want to make a fun game that also compels you to spend money on it in order to 'get ahead'. Those two conflicting ideas can inspire some awful results.

It's a balancing act that 98% of F2P games never get right. So, it's not something that is easy.

Unknown

I can't see it as anything but a money grab. This only promotes people buying covers for the "true" healers, health packs, +ALL boosts to make fights go faster, and extra slots for multiple copies of characters, all of which are only obtained extremely slowly through time, or via purchase.

I am an addicted player that has payed a fair amount of money for a free to play game, but no where near their 1 dollar a day that they have been quoted as wanting. This change will turn me into a true free to play player, but may increase the overall influx of cash from the remaining player base.

Unknown

I think it's about fifty/fifty dollar chasing and rank incompetence. The people in charge seem to fixate on metrics over gross revenue, even to their own financial detriment. So a directive probably goes out that they're not selling enough health packs, even if revenues are fine, and they'll screw up the game trying to increase one metric or another.

The ARPDAU articles were eye-opening in that they gave us an idea of what they're trying to do, and it is, quite frankly, ridiculous. If they'd make the game more player-friendly, they'd increase total revenues, even if averages went down a bit. I happily put money into Simpsons: Tapped Out, the only other f2p game I really play, and it's because they give me a rewarding and fun user experience. MPQ feels like it's trying to make me either pony up a ton of money or grind myself down, and I haven't given them a dime in months.

This game is run badly. It's managed badly. The people in charge do not seem to know what they're doing. If I could play when I wanted, how I'd like, and not have to bow to their schedules and their weird monetization ****, I'd put in some money - $5, $10, $20 per month. Happily. But I keep being on the cusp of thinking it's time to quit, and in any case, I'm simply not giving a game that's this frustrating any money. There's a very good game underneath all this that the developers keep trying to drown in monetization.

Unknown

Ben Grimm wrote:

I think it's about fifty/fifty dollar chasing and rank incompetence. The people in charge seem to fixate on metrics over gross revenue, even to their own financial detriment. So a directive probably goes out that they're not selling enough health packs, even if revenues are fine, and they'll screw up the game trying to increase one metric or another.

The ARPDAU articles were eye-opening in that they gave us an idea of what they're trying to do, and it is, quite frankly, ridiculous. If they'd make the game more player-friendly, they'd increase total revenues, even if averages went down a bit. I happily put money into Simpsons: Tapped Out, the only other f2p game I really play, and it's because they give me a rewarding and fun user experience. MPQ feels like it's trying to make me either pony up a ton of money or grind myself down, and I haven't given them a dime in months.

This game is run badly. It's managed badly. The people in charge do not seem to know what they're doing. If I could play when I wanted, how I'd like, and not have to bow to their schedules and their weird monetization ****, I'd put in some money - $5, $10, $20 per month. Happily. But I keep being on the cusp of thinking it's time to quit, and in any case, I'm simply not giving a game that's this frustrating any money. There's a very good game underneath all this that the developers keep trying to drown in monetization.

I apologize for being frank but your post is complete garbage. You cannot make the assumption that this game would make more money just because you SAY you'd spend more money if the developers gave you what you want. People SAY things all the time, it's what they DO that counts here.

"Oh the devs made the game more player-friendly so I will reward them with 10bux." How many of the playerbase do think have this thought? 5%? Less? More than likely the thought would be: "wow this game is easier now I don't have to spend money on it to suceed, I'll save 10bux for the Steam sale!"

rixmith

I don't think Demiurge believes that this will suddenly get people to spend a lot of money on Health Packs. I do think they want to make the game better. But better for who? For example when you change MMR so that 3* teams start PvP by playing other max 3* teams that makes the game better for 99% of the player base who felt it really sucks to have their little 1* and 2* teams bullied by 3* teams. But it makes the game much harder for long term players (who make up a much larger percentage of forum contributors). But overall it was probably very good for keeping more players in the game.

So who does this healing change make the game better for? In theory, it makes every 2* player happy to not have to constantly face Ares/Thor + OBW (which is a good thing). And it favors players who have developed deep rosters (also a good thing). Whether that holds in practice or not we'll just have to see. But it also hurts all the 2* players stuck in the rut today.

My reasons for being stuck in the Ares/OBW rut are simple.

1. If I used any other team I got attacked a lot more. Like 10x.
2. I could end maybe 2/3 or my matches at full health and keep playing

With the proposed mechanic I won't be able to do #2 anymore. That would be okay if it weren't for #1. I expect this mechanic will just lead to much more skipping - why even consider attacking Thor/OBW when you can skip and probably find a cStorm/MNMags?

I'd love to be able to use my entire roster in PvP. But it is not fun to constantly be attacked and lose far more points than you can possibly gain back. Fix this problem and the whole healing issue becomes so much less important.

Here's a concept: assign each character a Defensive value between 0 and 50. When you take a defensive loss you lose that many less percent point. So 2* Cap could have a 25, Ares and Thor would be 0, Moonstone a 25, Bagman could be 50. Now if I made a team of Cap and Moonstone when I took a defensive loss I'd lose only 50% of the points that I would lose if I used Thor and Ares. This requires no other change to game mechanics or character and the values could be tweaked based on actual usage.

Unknown

rixmith wrote:

My reasons for being stuck in the Ares/OBW rut are simple.

1. If I used any other team I got attacked a lot more. Like 10x.
2. I could end maybe 2/3 or my matches at full health and keep playing

With the proposed mechanic I won't be able to do #2 anymore. That would be okay if it weren't for #1. I expect this mechanic will just lead to much more skipping - why even consider attacking Thor/OBW when you can skip and probably find a cStorm/MNMags?

One potential solution that the Devs have not considered... FIXING SOME OF THESE CHARS to increase the number of potential combinations instead of just adding new 3*s every other week.

Bagman and Bullseye are majorly broken. Moonstone, Hawkeye, and Cap need to be fine-tuned, etc.


Three easy fixes-

Change 2* Cap to be more like 3* Cap, such as leaving behind the defense tile or increasing the red damage done, and you've made the character useful for PVP in addition to PVE.

Change Moonstone's purple so that a specific tile is chosen rather than a random one and it becomes a lot more useful because you can deal with one specific tile.

Change Hawkeye's countdown tiles so that you can place them instead of having them randomly placed. This ensures they stick around 2-4 turns to be fired off.

Unknown

all fine suggeations Teke, but cmon...wouldnt you rather have the Dev team spend 2 months and countless hours on revamping the hues of the Gems?...cause ya know...the metrics told them that it would make the experience more fun.


marc

MarvelMan

mcheath wrote:

I apologize for being frank but your post is complete garbage. You cannot make the assumption that this game would make more money just because you SAY you'd spend more money if the developers gave you what you want. People SAY things all the time, it's what they DO that counts here.

"Oh the devs made the game more player-friendly so I will reward them with 10bux." How many of the playerbase do think have this thought? 5%? Less? More than likely the thought would be: "wow this game is easier now I don't have to spend money on it to suceed, I'll save 10bux for the Steam sale!"

This actually had me thinking a bit. I agree that suggesting that if we got what we are asking for that we would spend more isnt a very good comment without data to back it up, but it really does seem that they are driving people away from playing (as someguy points out, people who put the game down due to inability to play because they are out of health are likely to find something else). Without people enjoying the game the base declines and then even the whales/cheaters/cc-babies will leave, meaning no money.

It definitely seems its a balancing act between making money and making a game that is just plain enjoyable to play, and they are picking one rather than trying to walk that tight rope.

Unknown

Teke184 wrote:

It's probably a combination of a cash grab and most devs, outside of Ice, not actually *playing* the game competitively.

lol I wouldn't call Ice's 32 pts per every three tournaments "competitive" play.

Unknown

FoxyMulder wrote:

Teke184 wrote:

It's probably a combination of a cash grab and most devs, outside of Ice, not actually *playing* the game competitively.

lol I wouldn't call Ice's 32 pts per every three tournaments "competitive" play.

Considering the level of understanding that the devs seem to have, that's actually "competitive play" in my book.

I don't think any of the other devs have played outside of the sandbox server where they playtest new chars.

MarvelMan

Here is a chart, from Steam, that someone (I forget who) posted earlier showing that the playerbase is dwindling: http://steamcharts.com/app/234330


That tells me that they are either getting more money from each of those fewer players on average, or their profitability is tanking. Neither of those is a good thing.

Unknown

MarvelMan wrote:

Here is a chart, from Steam, that someone (I forget who) posted earlier showing that the playerbase is dwindling: http://steamcharts.com/app/234330


That tells me that they are either getting more money from each of those fewer players on average, or their profitability is tanking. Neither of those is a good thing.

I'm guessing that their profitability is tanking, which is at least partially due to changes to monetize the game more and the strip-mining of their player base through the introduction of "seasons", which sped up the burnout of numerous players.

MarvelMan

Teke184 wrote:

strip-mining of their player base

So true, so true. And as we all know, strip mining is a good thing......

Unknown

I don't think there is a dev in the world who wants to ruin his game. There may be some incompetent, but not many. I don't think the MPQ devs are incompetent; just greedy. If you check the ISO price in the market you'll see for yourself. Based on current prices ($90 for 52k ISO), you need around $300 to fully level a 3* character. Now tell me; compared to a game which is in development for 2-3 years and sells for $50 on release and $10-20 on a Steam sale 6 months later, isn't greed that drives the MPQ devs to make all these changes?

With the change to healing the game just isn't F2P any more because there are practically 0 ways to reach end game without paying. If they change the number of Healing Packs or their refresh time the hit would be softer, but the fact that they are willing to nerf Spiderman a second time and pre-nerf She-Hulk to deal with a problem only they (and a few select of us) identified as a major problem in the game says a lot about their motives.

The real problem with the game is that the entire concept of the damage system is flawed. When damage remains after each match, then is it really the player's fault for wanting to heal his characters? Or is it bad that he wants to keep playing in an event with the same 3-4 heroes. Some paid for the covers and the ISO and we have the dev jump in and say:

- You played enough with this hero. You MUST use another hero in your next match.
- But I really liked that one. I just learned how to play with him ...
- That is true, but I am doing this for you, so you don't get bored. Why don't you try another? I suggest you try Falcon, Storm or even Moonstone. People underestimate her, but don't make the same mistake. She is great if you uncover her secrets.
- But ...
- What? You don't want to do that because you already burned your 3* heroes after a cascade wiped out your entire team and your next best hero is a 2* Storm with 2670 health who can't win against a Thor/Hulk/Sentry team? Don't fret. I have already though of that. You can visit our store and benefit from our reasonable prices. You will have a new 3* hero up and running in no time.
- But ...
- What was that? You can't afford to pay what you would normally pay for 6 AAA games for only 1 hero? I have thought of that too. Here, this week we have a special offer for you. It will cost only 66% of what you would have to pay any other week. That is only the same as 4 AAA titles. Yeah, yeah, I know. I am awesome.

Yeah, I know, it all makes sense now. It's all so we have more fun. They said it themselves and they wouldn't lie, would they?

Unknown

MarvelMan wrote:

Here is a chart, from Steam, that someone (I forget who) posted earlier showing that the playerbase is dwindling: http://steamcharts.com/app/234330

That tells me that they are either getting more money from each of those fewer players on average, or their profitability is tanking. Neither of those is a good thing.

And experience shows that when companies face dwindling income start on all kind of desperate changes that supposedly bring the income back. That is where system-wide thinking and deep understanding of forces.

Little upthread there was a reference to the income article series, indeed it showed all kinds of insane thinking (including that people buy more tokens without guaranteed hero for the excitement value... or the surprise that more people showed up on X PVP offering LT than the dark avengers one offering loki). I''m sure they have a chart of prologue activity telling them player gained a megaton of health that way -- and someone can pick up the calculator to convert it into "lost" money on health packs. After all even some judges accepted that if the housewife on social care downloaded a collection of 100k CDs she would definitely had bought them all in the shop for $14 apiece, summoning $M1.4 of lost revenue that she has to cough up. If people with covered with degrees and licensed to rule over people's lives think like that what to expect of random D3 personnel? And such thinking usually comes in pack with not tolerating feedback, criticism and opinions not in line.

The real sad thing is that it is (IMO) established industrial wisdom that 'customer satisfaction' works. That happy players pay more than unhappy ones. That monitoring customer feedback worth its wile in gold. Also that users of a system usually have the most information about it, so almost anyone with consistent play record could provide better models, estimates, explain things. And could tell money-wise impact more precisely.

Seem they must actually crash into the iceberg before starting to think how good idea it is to speeding away in the night ignoring the warnings.

Unknown

pasa_ wrote:

The real sad thing is that it is (IMO) established industrial wisdom that 'customer satisfaction' works. That happy players pay more than unhappy ones. That monitoring customer feedback worth its wile in gold. Also that users of a system usually have the most information about it, so almost anyone with consistent play record could provide better models, estimates, explain things. And could tell money-wise impact more precisely.

Seem they must actually crash into the iceberg before starting to think how good idea it is to speeding away in the night ignoring the warnings.

Between the "true healing" change and the refusal by the devs to look at a certain group of players and how they were getting unbelievably high scores, it's safe to say that they've been ignoring us for quite a while.

Unknown

pasa_ wrote:

The real sad thing is that it is (IMO) established industrial wisdom that 'customer satisfaction' works.

Actually, that is less and less the accepted wisdom. If you're actually interested in the subject, give this short article a read:

http://www.dmnews.com/customer-satisfac ... le/313592/