"Top 15% get a 3* cover" - business model discussion

atomzed

The reward structure has been discussed many times, but usually in different forms.

Many people has complained about the old pve structure, where at the last minute they are screwed by another person who won them by 10 pts.

Many people has complained about how the pvp put them up against a huge 166 wall, and they can't complete for the 3* covers.

In this gauntlet, people complained about the difficulty being impossible (agree that it's very tough!) And were upset with the "puny" rewards given.

To me, while the reward structure and difficulty can be tweaked and adjusted, the sacrosanct principle I see is that only limited percentage of the mpq population will be given 3* covers. This has been consistent in the past 4 months and it doesn't appear to be changing.

The percentage seems hover around top 15% to top 20% getting 1 cover, top 5% to 10% get 2 cover, and top 1% get 3 cover. This is consistent across pvp and pve (excluding the new gauntlet).

Why is such a principle (let's call it "15%") required? Covers are the ONLY coveted item in mpq now. In order to keep it coveted, they need to make it scarce. So by only giving 3* covers to 15%, they are capping the amount of 3* covers being released to mpq population.

As a guiding principle, the 15% principle makes perfect sense. Sure, you can argue on the actual percentage, but the idea that you need to give limited number of covers ("scarcity") to ensure the cover remains attractive ("value")... Is hard to argue against.

As with all real world problems, the challenge is with the execution of the principle.

How should we determine the "15%"? Well, giving it to the "top" 15% makes sense. Giving it to "top 15%" increases competition, and rewards those who has done well. I believe this is the reason why they make pvp and pve (except gauntlet) the way that they are.

In the past, this worked ok, since many people were still in the 2* to 3* transition. But as the mpq population mature, more and more players get their max characters and the 166 wall becomes higher and higher.

Sharding and scaling were the solutions mpq came up with. Personal scaling to adjust the pve, so difficulty is easier for those with poorer roster. Community scaling to combat grinding. Sharding to give the newer players a better chance of doing well.

Of course, we all know about the problems all those "solutions" caused.

With the introduction of the gauntlet, the reward system can allow 100% of the mpq population to get 3* covers. Obviously this is not good and D3 have to adjust the difficulty upwards to ensure only top 15% can clear. Is the gauntlet too difficult? I think it is. But no matter how they make it easier, they have to ensure some difficulty so that only "top 15%" clears it. Which means that many people will continue to be disappointed.

---

My point for this post? I am trying to explain that certain solutions were instituted because they have to ensure scarcity of the covers.We can and should discuss about the implementation (e.g. difficulty of gauntlet). But as long as the "top 15%" principle remains, someone somewhere will be upset. You can argue that we should draw the line at the 2* to 3* transition group... But other groups will be upset too. It will be a never ending argument, if we are only looking at "did I get my 3* covers?!".

My personal.opinion is that we need to move beyond covers as the "chase" items. Say, they introduce trophies, skins, equipment etc, the covers need not be limited in numbers anymore.

Until then, the covers will continue to be limited in numbers, and some people will be disappointed regardless how we draw the line.

* above are my personal opinions and observations and is not D3 opinion.

Sandmaker

Very good analysis.

One thing I'd point out is that I finished pve at 61st place with what I can see below me already maxed out in point as well. With more than a day left, I'm guessing at least top 100, if not 200, in my bracket will get 3 covers. That translate to a 10-20x increase in cover rewards given out than our standard pves.

Of course the calculation is skewed, because I don't know what percent of players made it to the final sub. But even if only 1 in 10 people made it to sub 3 (I highly doubt it's that low.), there is still more cover rewards given out this event than the previous format.

So it's rather interesting that people are complaining that it's already too hard. Because from a rewards given point of view, this event was not hard enough. I would expect to see worst from D3 in the future.

Xiltyn

One other thing I would consider of note here: previous PvE events an individual had the opportunity for 4 covers if able to take first place (one 4*, and three 3* of the same character), with a possible fifth if alliance placed above 100th. Yes, this is just 1 out of 1000 per bracket or .1% of player population.

The Gauntlet has three unique 3* covers, each for a different character. So, while it basically gives everyone more of an opportunity to obtain 3* covers, overall character progress is much less. Which still keeps demand for covers fairly high.

SunCrusher

atomzed wrote:

With the introduction of the gauntlet, the reward system can allow 100% of the mpq population to get 3* covers. Obviously this is not good and D3 have to adjust the difficulty upwards to ensure only top 15% can clear. Is the gauntlet too difficult? I think it is. But no matter how they make it easier, they have to ensure some difficulty so that only "top 15%" clears it. Which means that many people will continue to be disappointed.

For the record as a 2* transitioning player, I don't mind missing out on rewards if it's because I'm just not up to snuff.

If I miss refreshes on nodes, if the levels are just OMGWTF and I keep dying, etc, I DON'T expect to 'win'. At all.

That said, it wasn't just difficulty level that helped to filter people out from earning the final 3* covers rewards from the Gauntlet; it was also the requirement of three different Essentials characters - Punisher, GSBW, and Black Panther.

Unlike other PvEs where you could at least try and grind nodes to earn enough points for Progression to possibly earn the 3* cover (from Progression, not Ranking), missing Essential characters mean completely and absolutely not ever being able to fully participate in the event and never being able to earn the final Progression reward.

Obviously, if you either buy the cover outright or manage to pull someone from the Heroic Token or somehow, the Recruit Token, then hooray, you can go for the Essentials, but otherwise, no.

So it isn't just difficulty levels. It's also - in this case - an issue of money, too, if you're not lucky with token pulls.

Again, comparing it to other PvEs with required characters isn't the same thing; in other PvEs (for example, the Heroic Venom with Beast for a reward where Patch was Essential), a player could earn enough points by grinding other nodes to earn the final Progression award needed to unlock the Essentials. In Gauntlet, there is no such option.

In my case, it boiled down to money first as opposed to actual difficulty level; I wasn't willing to throw a ton of HP to go try my luck at pulling the right covers and to me, that isn't quite the same as 'difficulty level' with level 300+ opponents or whatever the situation it is.

atomzed

Xiltyn wrote:

One other thing I would consider of note here: previous PvE events an individual had the opportunity for 4 covers if able to take first place (one 4*, and three 3* of the same character), with a possible fifth if alliance placed above 100th. Yes, this is just 1 out of 1000 per bracket or .1% of player population.

The Gauntlet has three unique 3* covers, each for a different character. So, while it basically gives everyone more of an opportunity to obtain 3* covers, overall character progress is much less. Which still keeps demand for covers fairly high.

Agree and disagree.

While individual character progress is reduced, the overall mpq cover population is (potentially) is increased.

I don't think D3 micro manages to the individual level, trying to help a specific individual or to screw a specific individual.

What they are concerned with the macro level, at the mpq population.

atomzed

Another point I like to raise with regards to the "15%" principle, is the D3 estimated time of 2* to 3* transition for f2p players.

D3 likely has decided on the "15%", after assessing that the percentage will allow a f2p player X amount of months to get X fully covered 3*.

For illustration purpose, maybe D3 has decided that 15% will ensure that a f2p players will take 6 months to have 2x fully covered 3*. This translates to 6 months worth of gaming time for f2p players to reach the "end game" level.

Now the problem is that the 6 months progression, while acceptable to D3, may not be acceptable to typical f2p players. Typical f2p players want to reach the end game content as quickly as possible. They want it to be a sprint, instead of a marathon.

With such mis match of expectations, it is no wonder many people complain about the low rewards, poor progression, stagnation, quitting etc....

To be fair to D3, they have resolved the transition problems for 1* to 2* for f2p players by allowing it to be randomly dropped from matches. However, this has also devalued the 2* covers such that most forummers (probably more dedicated players), don't even complain about the 2* covers.

It's inevitably the 2*to 3* players who are complaining. Because they are the bulk of the mpq population, they are the "middle class" of mpq. And in econs terms, it is very hard to resolve middle class related problems.

@suncrusher, that's a good point brought up. I am not sure whether this was intentional or D3 just revert to the old pve arrangement. It should be brought up to their attention.

atomzed

I thought this was an interesting point from a f2p player (I'm assuming oldboy is a f2p player)

Oldboy wrote:

Just gotta stick it out and play smart. It's been almost 5 months for me to grind and collect 3* and only now i have my first 11/13 covered character (Patch) and a few sub-10/13 covered 3*. I'm not saying it's the best strategy but i knew it was gonna be hard and take a long time to even get a fully covered 3*.

5 months for a 11/13 3* is quite close to my expectation of 2 max cover 3*in 6 months...

SunCrusher

I rather agree with your thoughts, except for one thing. Not all us 2* transitional players are f2p-ers.

Thing is, I don't buy covers or cover packs and I don't buy boosts or Health Packs (because I mostly play PvE, I actually enjoy trying to earn rewards at my own pace so I try and let the game progress on its own), but I bought expansion slots for my roster and quite a few of them at that.

Just in case anyone's wondering, I've been playing since pre-R47/Ragnarok nerf and have 6+ months in of solid game time so I'm not one of those 2-3 month-ers who's griping about not having 3*s yet. My bigger problem, it seems, is the fact that I got stuck not just once (in 2*-3*) but twice (1*-2*) back when 1-2* transitioning was really painful and it basically kind of snowballed from there.

Back then, everyone's advice was to get the 'easy' 2* covers from the Prologue... except in my case, my RNG refused to drop the Prologue covers. I collected Boosts, ISO, even HP and a few Recruit Tokens, but... no covers. I had a hell of a time fighting out PvEs without even the most basic of 2*s for a long time and I eventually quit for a bit during that time period once I started building my 2* roster.

When I came back, I found out that the game had changed a lot for newbies... except I wasn't a newbie anymore to reap the benefits.

I've played catch-up ever since and have thus been stuck in 2* land with a diverse 2-3* (more of the older 3* characters than new) roster for some time (past 6 months).

Which... in a lot of ways isn't that bad! I have nearly every 2* character available and can honestly say that I have played with them all and have enjoyed doing so. I also have quite a few 3*s of the older generation. But... I was ready for the Gauntlet and I was ready to try my best to earn some new 3*s and so it was frustrating that the only thing keeping me from it was the necessary/Essential character business.

Edit: Also, Lightning Rounds don't give out covers anymore, either, and that's how a lot of the veterans grabbed their covers. I missed that 'boat' by juuuuust a little bit.

h4n1s

atomzed wrote:

My personal.opinion is that we need to move beyond covers as the "chase" items. Say, they introduce trophies, skins, equipment etc, the covers need not be limited in numbers anymore.

I agree that some other motivators should be implemented, I can see their added value.

Except skins.

In many games skins mean only change of the looks - they don't bring added value (unless you are very keen on having your wolverine wearing pink socks (example))

What I can imagine are things like 'equipment'. I.e. Magneto has helmet which grants him some nice features (resistance against prof x's mental hacks... etc.). So I can think of having some items/collectibles which can be equipped on certain characters giving them some minor boost (+1% damage, +1 blue AP to start etc.), that'd be fairly cool and motivating as reward and devs could even program some simple 'randomizer' which can create some unique items on its own (like in Diablo) suited for specific characters.

However there's always a downside to it. The more items/skins you put in the game the bigger that game will be (more graphics, more cache usage, etc.) and it may cause that, unless you are willing to sacrifice 500MB of your phones memory to MPQ, many new players won't even install that game anymore and older players with older phones may not be able to play anymore.

Unknown

Would a good solution be to change rigid bracket to chances instead? Right now if you've finished 51, you won't get 25-50 prize no matter what. Make it so instead any upper tier prize is still available to those finished below, but at progressively reduced rate. Player who finished 51 would have, say 50% to get related 3* with each place below giving even more reduced rate. Even player who finished 300 would have some abysmal 0.0000000000000001% chance to get top 2 reward. Brackets would still be there, as they guarantee you 100% chance to get related reward, but you'd still progress nothingless and won't be as pissed at single point differences.

loroku

To me (a new player) the issue seems to be more that the top 15% are the same people over and over. Or rather, you have to already be in the top 15% to get the top 15% rewards. Especially in PvP, I don't see myself climbing that ladder... ever. It is insurmountable.

What would be nice are rewards that are more along the lines of progression rewards in general; like the dailies, where just playing can get you more rewards. That can give a leg up to the people who can't get far enough along to ever get far enough along.

My 2 cents, anyway.

babinro

Not much to add to this discussion aside from it's both correct and incorrect.

I've seen a 1 star established player transitioning into 2 stars with six 3 star covers (colossus and LThor) thanks to PvE. My alliance has seen multiple 2 star players transition to 3 star players without being among the elite. Call it a nitpick, but top 15% get a 3* cover feels grossly inaccurate at least in the world of PvE's prior to the gauntlet. PvE progression rewards have been very player friendly of late often maxing out before the event goes into it's final subs.

That nitpick in % value aside the OP is right. The game structures rewards around a highly competitive business model that easily excludes newer players from getting in on the action. The fact that older games effectively 'beat' the game and ultimately quit/go casual is part of the reason why we get a rotation of players in the brackets to begin with. I'm not sure how exactly to best change this and keep the game feeling competitive and rewarding to players of all levels.

Here's a thought on how to balance progression rewards in PvP for all player types:

- Replace progression 300 reward with a 3* cover. This would enable 1 star players to obtain a meaningful reward. This cover would typically be a lesser cover for a given older character. (GSBW Red, IM40 Blue, LThor Red, LCap Yellow, Loki purple etc).

- Replace progression 600 reward with a mediocre 3* cover. This would be intended for 2* players who are breaking into 3*. This cover would typically be helpful for that player but not exactly useful to seasoned player. (LThor Green, Pun Black, IM40 Yellow, BP Yellow)

- The 1100 and 1300 progression rewards remain as is to appeal to the seasoned player. But...because more rewards are being given out to all, the placement rewards are now scaled back. This only makes sense. Perhaps instead of 4x 3* covers for a newer character we can only get 3 at top 5. Perhaps further increase the ISO reward keeping everything else the same as a partial compensation.

wymtime

I look at the reward structure as a good thing right now. The top 100 in PVP get a 3* cover when it used to be top 50. They changed the Alliance reward which I personally did not like but if it is keeping people for alliance hopping I think that is a good thing. I personally think alliances should be about being apart of a team instead of getting extra rewards. I generally hit top 25 and sometimes top 10 based on the bracket I am in in PVP and if you look at the way PVP works think about what would happen to scoring if you gave 3 covers out for the top 10 instead of top 5.
1: Right now if you are in the top 10 and are out of range of top 5 you stay shielded instead of shield hopping. It would cost you 75 HP to stay top 10 and earn 100 HP compared to if you fell out of top 10 you only get 50 HP. By shield hopping you are spending 25 HP for the extra ISO of being in top 10. Now if top 10 gets the third cover players in the 11-15 range have much more incentive to shield hop because spending an extra 75-150 HP to a 3* cover you want is worth the money. So now scores will go even higher for top 10.

2:Now that scores go up for top 10 that means top 25 will go higher as well becuase top 10 scores have gone up. Instead of being in the 800-900 range for top 25 you will need to be 900-1000. Players in the 2* range hit the 3* players around 600-700. So now the 2* transition players will have a very hard time hitting top 50 let alone top 100. They would have to make top 50 get 2 covers instead of 1 in order to keep 2* transitioning teams transitioning.

As much as I would like to be able to make the transition to 3* quicker I think giving out more covers in PVP is not the right stratigey. I think the better idea is to increase the chances of getting 3* more likely in the tokens. IF it would be possible they could tier the cards in PVP. In order to do this I would switch the 500 progression with the 300. Make the 300 the dedicated 2* cover. It is mostly ISO even for 2*-3* transition anyway. Make the toke at 500 and 900 and increase the odds to get the 3* covers. If they could increase the tokens to give out 5% more 3* covers it would definatly help transitioning players as well as increase revenue as more people would be willing to buy the daily deals!!!

Phaserhawk

Sandmaker wrote:

Very good analysis.

One thing I'd point out is that I finished pve at 61st place with what I can see below me already maxed out in point as well. With more than a day left, I'm guessing at least top 100, if not 200, in my bracket will get 3 covers. That translate to a 10-20x increase in cover rewards given out than our standard pves.

Of course the calculation is skewed, because I don't know what percent of players made it to the final sub. But even if only 1 in 10 people made it to sub 3 (I highly doubt it's that low.), there is still more cover rewards given out this event than the previous format.

So it's rather interesting that people are complaining that it's already too hard. Because from a rewards given point of view, this event was not hard enough. I would expect to see worst from D3 in the future.

It was never possible to get 5 covers. Before Alliances you could get 3 covers if you finished in the top 10. When alliances came about they got rid of a third cover and put it into the alliance rewards. This upset a lot of people who werent' in a decent alliance, they made a change I believe Season 2 or 3 and put the 3rd cover back in for the lone wolf player, but now it is only available for top 5. So the best you can hope to achieve is 4 covers in any one event, but most of the time the cover for 1-5 is the alliance cover as well.

Yes covers are rare that's by design, but they aren't so rare as to be unattainable. I have been there, that 2* to 3* transition, however older players had better opportunities back in the day, like when you could get guarenteed covers in Lighting rounds and when cover drop rates were higher. Or when you could buy event packs and get guarenteed characters. But I can say this, you are out of your league if you think you will be getting top reward in PvP without at least 3 fully maxed characters in the 3* range. You can place pretty solid, you can probably even get at least 1 3*, but PvE is for the transitioning player. Hopefully D3 will keep doing more buffed tourney's where 1 and 2* get maxed so they are on par with their 3 and 4* counter parts. Like the one where everyone was boosted to 270. If you had a fully developed 1 and 2* roster you were just as likely to win as anyone else.

Get a fully 2* roster at least 6 guys maxed, make sure you have the decent 1*'s maxed too since they are needed from time to time. It's frustrating I know, and I think it's both better and worse now, but if you hang in there it does come

Unknown

Minor observation. The most recent tourneys have been offering a single cover to the top 100 ....in a bracket of 500. That is an increase to 20% from the previous top 150 per 1000, and the range was even worse before that. D3 is in fact lessening its grip on three stars gradually. But oddly in a fashion that makes it harder to notice that they are doing so.

Also love the idea of lower reward brackets still offering chances at 3* covers. Needs to be some ground in between 3(+4*)--3--2--1--0. Even adding half steps (a token with a 50% chance of a reward hero's cover 50% chance of 2*) Would give much more flexibility to the reward structure. A 3.5(+4*)--3.5--3.0--2.5--2.0--1.5--1.0--0.5-0 allows many more possible reward tiers.

Unknown

Not sure how many of you guys watch Touring Car here in the UK but what they do there is have two races on a Saturday session and the grid is flipped upside down from the first race to the second race such that he who finished first now starts at the back and the last placed guy starts first and so on.

Is it not possible to do something like that here and not give the tough guys the easy seed teams at the beginning of a tournament/s but really difficult ones instead and the not so tough guys (me and others) get the easier seed teams (with more points) for longer at the beginning of a tournament/s? If they only want those at the top to have the best toys then fair enough, but I'd wager that more of the player base at the other end of the spectrum also have a considerable disposable income to use on covers so aren't they just limiting their own income in the long run?

atomzed

When I post this thread, I was expecting the HT responses (aka flame on!), where people accuse me that the covers are not enough, and I'm a lap dog of D3.

So I was pleasantly surprised that people were pointing out my "mistakes", that D3 has been more generous that my "15%" mark.

If I want to be picky, the actual percentage of at least one 3* cover per event is likely to be higher than 15%. When you include the covers you get from tokens, from alliance rewards, from progression rewards (1100 and 1300), the percentage will definitely go up higher.

In fact, the first-time I attain 1300 pvp score, it was because I wanted the 1300 xforce cover. And because I got first, I actually gain 6 covers (4 3* and 2 4*). Well, some of you may say that 4* is useless for 2* transition players. But the thing I like about mpq is that the covers add up slowly but surely. If I have never kept my xforce covers(was planning to sell them!), I won't be able to get him to 552 covers when the balancing came out. And now he's the best character in the game (personal opinion, lets wait for the ranking!)

Regarding the suggestions in here, it's good that we are suggesting things that do not impact the bottom line of d3. As it means that they are more likely to be receptive torwards it and may make the change eventually. (See gauntlet which is true pve)

Let's hope d3 reads this!

atomzed

JusticeB wrote:

.

Is it not possible to do something like that here and not give the tough guys the easy seed teams at the beginning of a tournament/s but really difficult ones instead and the not so tough guys (me and others) get the easier seed teams (with more points) for longer at the beginning of a tournament/s? If they only want those at the top to have the best toys then fair enough, but I'd wager that more of the player base at the other end of the spectrum also have a considerable disposable income to use on covers so aren't they just limiting their own income in the long run?

This is already happening. Those players with high.mmr don't get the seed teams (unless they'd start at the beginning but that's more due to mmr implementation). This people will face the 166 teams right at the start.Of.pvp.

If you are talk ing about pve, then the personal scaling also comes into play here.

Unknown

I agree that top 50 out of 500 was too competitive. In order for a 2* player to rank (as of season 3 anyways), they'd have to spend both time and hp, or be able to play the last 2 hours. With top 100, you can push to about 600 and then usually settle down in the top 100 in the end. The best way to get 3* for a 2* player is still PVE.

_RiO_

daibar wrote:

The best way to get 3* for a 2* player is still PVE.

Unless you live outside of the US, in which case it's actually easier to draft into an under-leveled, under-performing PvP bracket and hold a top 100 position there.

FaerieMyst

If I were D3, rather than change anything at the present time, I would work on better managing expectations. For example, character packs - the odds are clear if you click the little question mark but most people really don't understand statistics. So people usually have unrealistic expectations going in and therefore are disappointed. How many posts are there every season because the Heroic 10-pack didn't have any or enough gold covers?

The hardest part of selling is managing expectations. I used to work with a guy who believed you should always ship the customers first order out late so that in the future they didn't expect it quicker and would be pleased when it arrived in a normal time. He would tell me that you have to train your customers. There is some truth in that - although I disagree with how he implemented it.

Here's the catch for D3 - a very small portion of their customer base looks at this forum. Most don't even read the pop-ups. So managing expectations is difficult. The prologue is the training ground for the game but the longer a person plays, the more that recedes in the background. FB & Twitter, properly utilized, are probably the best tools for this task but social media management is not easy.