This game offers too much false hope

Unknown

There are probably statistic reasons to explain why only 1% get the covers and best rewards.

0.8% of the players contribute financially to the game.

The figures are pretty close.

With MPQ, you are either hooked or not. I introduced a friend to it. He did not get hooked. He started 1 week later than I. I'm on the 150th-ish day, he's on the 40th.

Only the ones who get addicted will play repeatedly and will wish to play more/better. The others will just play it like a Candy Crush or any other game. You have 5 Med Packs, you play for 10 or 15 minutes, and that's it. You can probably play more if you only have 1* chars as they regen fast. Those probably don't care about the new covers and new chars.

I saw there are around 22 000 Alliances that's a maximum of 440 000 players in an Alliance (but all of them are not 20 people). 6670 registered user on the forum. 1.5 % (and if we consider all Alliances don't have 20 players, we must be in the same 1%).

So, I don't think MPQ is delusional. The reward structure is calculated so that the 1% who are very motivated struggle to place to get a reward and if they don't get it, that's not that bad in the end, as what is desirable is more valueable. Meanwhile, they will have spent (virtual) money to try and place.

Unknown

kidicarus wrote:

I didn't mean to judge your lifestyle and I'm sorry if I came across that way. I remember growing up playing games in the arcades - where spending a quarter/dollar would get you 10 minutes of play in a game of Daytona, street fighter or whatever the game du jour was. I also have insane stats on minesweeper and have accumulated crazy scores on vegas style solitaire so there so I do agree with your insights.

MINESWEEPER! I din't know you play that too, I used to play MS when I was a teenage boy and was crazy about breaking my score. I remembered my expert record was around 80 seconds? lol, simpler times

Phillipes

Phantron wrote:

I don't know how to undo this system, especially on the PvP end, but they need to make an effort to unwrap some of the mechanisms that makes the top prizes always seemingly in reach, because so far it seems like all it does is make people really angry when the average guy can't get a prize that only 1% of the people can get. There's no point to have a carrot if you know 99% of the people will never get it. Iso 8 Brotherhood was a pretty good example of how to set goals. After about a few days it should be rather obvious if you're not this hardcore you're not hitting the Storm cover. So either you become as hardcore as the event requires, or you can realize that you're not going to come close to hitting 125K and thus not waste any additional time chasing something that you can't get.

TOTALLY AGREE +1

DD-The-Mighty

Spoit wrote:

Insert form argument about applying reasoning for a top 1-2 finish down to just getting a cover, how phantron is playing a different kind of game altogether, etc.

Nah, nah, man. You're just doing it right. Phan is just trying to teaching you how.

Dauthi

Phantron wrote:

After all, only 1% of the people can get all 3 She-Hulk covers out of 1000 via individual placement.

I don't know how to undo this system, especially on the PvP end, but they need to make an effort to unwrap some of the mechanisms that makes the top prizes always seemingly in reach

Really? It almost seems as if you are suggesting it.

Make smaller brackets and more of them. Make brackets for alliances as well while they are at it. Maybe small increments to test the water at first, but giving players consistent rewards and making that carrot easier to obtain will incentive players to stick around.

CNash

abmoraz wrote:

As a software developer, that is one of the least informed opinions I;ve ever heard (I'll refrain from using "tinykitty" in my description of it). Devs want people using their software (if it's made for public consumption, that is).

So you're a software developer. That's as well as may be, but are you a developer of free-to-play games? The user expectations for F2P are vastly different from most pay-up-front software. Normally, yes, you'd want people to play and enjoy your software as much as possible, as this builds customer loyalty and they'll be more likely to buy your next game. But with F2P it's all about chasing that dollar; you haven't been paid upfront and the number of people who haven't bought anything vastly outnumbers those who have spent even $5 on your IAPs. Your goal is to coax your free-players to spend money; even if it's just a little. The usual method is to build a game that's super-enjoyable... but that you can only play for a limited time. So in a sense you're right - the devs want people to play their game as much as possible. They just don't want people to play their game for free as much as possible.

Unknown

CNash wrote:

So you're a software developer. That's as well as may be, but are you a developer of free-to-play games? The user expectations for F2P are vastly different from most pay-up-front software. Normally, yes, you'd want people to play and enjoy your software as much as possible, as this builds customer loyalty and they'll be more likely to buy your next game. But with F2P it's all about chasing that dollar; you haven't been paid upfront and the number of people who haven't bought anything vastly outnumbers those who have spent even $5 on your IAPs. Your goal is to coax your free-players to spend money; even if it's just a little. The usual method is to build a game that's super-enjoyable... but that you can only play for a limited time. So in a sense you're right - the devs want people to play their game as much as possible. They just don't want people to play their game for free as much as possible.

That possibly fits a single-player game but MPQ is mostly about competition. Here limiting the play as you say jsut turns the f2p to p2w that will then kill the last hope of "fun" game for most potential participants, leaving you just a small closed circle of win addicts with unlimited money. Forcing you to add simulated opponents to allow all of them win as put against each other the system just implodes.

Unknown

Phantron wrote:

I don't know how to undo this system, especially on the PvP end, but they need to make an effort to unwrap some of the mechanisms that makes the top prizes always seemingly in reach, because so far it seems like all it does is make people really angry when the average guy can't get a prize that only 1% of the people can get. There's no point to have a carrot if you know 99% of the people will never get it. Iso 8 Brotherhood was a pretty good example of how to set goals. After about a few days it should be rather obvious if you're not this hardcore you're not hitting the Storm cover. So either you become as hardcore as the event requires, or you can realize that you're not going to come close to hitting 125K and thus not waste any additional time chasing something that you can't get.

Don't you know by now that in the carrot/stick idiom the donkey never wins? By the time it gets to eat the carrot it's exhausted; either by the miles it had to travel or by the use of the stick. The carrot may taste great after all that trouble it had go through, but at the end of the day, the one who benefits is the one with the stick.

Unknown

stephen43084 wrote:

And while there is plenty, not everything can be fixed at once, and attempted fixes have to be given time so they can collect data to determine what worked with that attempt (if anything) and what they can do next.

They could always make smaller changes. Fact is I don't believe they make changes then collect data to see if it was a good change then reassess it. Otherwise explain Loki and Rag.

stephen43084 wrote:

There has (n)ever been more iso, HP, tokens, covers, or events available. Even scaling is doing well. Players that are unhappy they can't come in right away and win tourneys like crazy, that's a them problem.

Not true at all. HP flow used to be much better, availability of USEFUL tokens and more to the point GUARANTEED COVERS used to be HUGELY better. ISO flow is a bit better but the people who trumpet how they got their large collection of maxed 3* heroes as a F2P player would ABSOLUTELY NOT manage it now in an even remotely similar timeframe. That was true before the true healing fix, even more so now. Also I think people are mostly complaining that they can't play for any decent amount of time in one go and if they are once daily type players due to other commitments or simply choice they can no longer make any kind of headway. What you're commenting on is only a part of a more complex problem.

Aside from that agree with chunks of your post addressing other issues.

DD-The-Mighty

bonfire01 wrote:

the people who trumpet how they got their large collection of maxed 3* heroes as a F2P player would ABSOLUTELY NOT manage it now in an even remotely similar timeframe. That was true before the true healing fix, even more so now.

That is the number one leading problem with trying to have discussion on these changes with "top tier" players. There nothing more annoying than hear dismiss everything by telling you to "suck it up like they did".

I often wonder how bad it currently is the fresh to mid 2* players. As despite the addition of the -slim possibility- of getting a 2* cover on every pvp play coupled with the horrifically nerfed pvp cover rewards, focused character leveling in the 2 star section is a nightmare now. And it wasn't great to begin with back in the day. but at least if you randomed into enough of one character and mated them with your maxed 1* you could get all three of a specific character. and that's a HUGE boost to building your 2 stars. Now it a flood of randomass covers.

The random battle 2*s seemed like there's a lot. but when i really started pay attention to the rate and what i was getting, it's really not that many 2* covers. It was definitely not as good as having all three covers in a good bracket. You had so much more control back then. -_-