AXP_isme wrote: Maybe this has been suggested before but, why not let people choose what rewards they compete for and how it affects their season score. You could choose ISO only rewards or HP only or 1/2/3/4 * covers only and depending on what type of rewards you're competing for it could scale your season score. For instance I might want to enter a tournament with 3* covers where 75% of your event score gets added to your season score. Someone else might prefer to enter a tournament with ISO rewards if it gives 150% of their event score to their season score. That way the people who want the ISO and not the covers enter a different tournament because (1) they get more things they want (thousands of ISO) and less things they don't (covers they don't need that are worth less ISO and (2) they can lever up their season score so their alliance has more chance of getting GT or whatever the top season alliance rewards are. You, as a player, get to balance getting what you want by choosing the reward you're competing for. It feels like a way that everyone can get more of what they want without disadvantage noobs, transitioning players or those with more developed rosters. Just a thought.
AXP_isme wrote: When there were a small number of 3*s that meant the likelihood of getting covers for them was proportionally higher. Today, as the number goes steadily up, their drop rate in tokens goes down and their incidence of appearing I'm pve or pvp goes down as well. Conclusion: the later you joined the longer it will take to get any particular 3* max covered and levelled. Given where the game is today a lot of the 3*s are underpowered or highly situational. Add to that the number of 3*s and developing a strong team of 3/4 powerful characters will take a loooooong time, proportionally longer, significantly longer than it would have done if you'd joined earlier in the life cycle of the game.
AXP_isme wrote: The level shift had a profound impact in terms of separating the different star rated characters. When the loaners were level 23 they had little health and weren't very damaging. Now that they're level 60 they're higher In level than a maxed 1*. Conclusion: 1*s have been entirely devalued, there's no point having them. If you need proof just look at the addition of BoP and combined arms where they've had to create new events to demonstrate that the utility of a 1* roster isn't uniformly and exactly zero (in fact this is being games by people just using cover maxed L1 characters because the extra 40-50 levels just **** your healing time).
AXP_isme wrote: True healing affected the ability of 2* or low level 3* teams to go up against overpowered teams. I'm not saying it's a bad thing but in terms of maximising utility I will take 3x fights against 2* rosters earning 15 points apiece rather than one 35 point maxed 3* fight since I know I will recover more quickly. Conclusion: even though the gauntlet teaches us that with the right boosts and a following wind you can take down teams 70-100 levels higher than you it's not worth it. 2* rosters fight other 2*s. Conclusion 2: true healing characters have a disproportionately high utility. Don't believe me, check the rankings.
AXP_isme wrote: Really we need some stats to prove anything but I would be surprised if there wasn't a disproportionately high number of dormant rosters with half a dozen maxed 2*s and 10-20 low covered 3*s who played for a few months and gave up. More than there are dormant rosters in other states (except possibly people who give up almost immediately) though you would naturally expect there to be more 2-3* quitters because that's where the highest numbers of players will be bottlenecked but if you could show that ratio is higher than elsewhere - and that it's trending up - it would show you that there's a problem.
AXP_isme wrote: Here goes. It's now very simple to get a set of maxed 2*s and then the progression slows right down. I would contend that either something in the reward/incentive/tiering structure should change to provide a smoother progression - having too steep a learning curve or insufficient tangible progression is where the freemium model typically sees the biggest attrition of the player base (I have that on good authority from people who design freemium games for a living) - or expectations are calibrated poorly in the early stages of the game but the existing reward structure is the right one. It doesn't really matter which of those positions is more correct the answer is still that the model needs to be changed to manage expectations better.
I look forward to reading a cogent, well reasoned and witty riposte tomorrow morning. Something like "know your place" or "I've suffered so I don't see why you, and everyone like you, shouldn't have to suffer as well".
AXP_isme wrote: Last one, I promise (not sure who that's for). This is beginning to feel like I'm either doing a terrible job of explaining myself or I'm being trolled but...
AXP_isme wrote: Surely it's easy to get into a t100 alliance - either I'm very wide of the mark or only 1% of alliances can be t100 based on the splits, that may be more than 1% of the player base now, but not for long.
AXP_isme wrote: You only need hood and sentry - that's a shame. This sounds similar to an earlier point that people just want to finish in the top10 to feel good about themselves, if that's the limit of someone's ambition, fine. I'd like to do more than use the same 3 powers, rinse and repeat. Variety is the spice of life they say.
AXP_isme wrote: Get to the point you say. Here goes. It's now very simple to get a set of maxed 2*s and then the progression slows right down. I would contend that either something in the reward/incentive/tiering structure should change to provide a smoother progression - having too steep a learning curve or insufficient tangible progression is where the freemium model typically sees the biggest attrition of the player base (I have that on good authority from people who design freemium games for a living) - or expectations are calibrated poorly in the early stages of the game but the existing reward structure is the right one. It doesn't really matter which of those positions is more correct the answer is still that the model needs to be changed to manage expectations better.
AXP_isme wrote: I look forward to reading a cogent, well reasoned and witty riposte tomorrow morning. Something like "know your place" or "I've suffered so I don't see why you, and everyone like you, shouldn't have to suffer as well".
Raekwen wrote: AXP_isme wrote: Last one, I promise (not sure who that's for). This is beginning to feel like I'm either doing a terrible job of explaining myself or I'm being trolled but... I can guarantee I'm at least not doing any trolling. AXP_isme wrote: Surely it's easy to get into a t100 alliance - either I'm very wide of the mark or only 1% of alliances can be t100 based on the splits, that may be more than 1% of the player base now, but not for long. For people who are active, daily players who show a commitment to working to get better, and are heading in the right direction.. no, it should not be that hard. I've read on here plenty of alliances from 50-100 who are willing to take on people that are transitioning. Hell, even we took someone on at the beginning of this season that didn't have a fully levelled 3* yet. What matters most to the alliances during the transition is the effort and counting on someone who won't suddenly disappear for whole events at a time. AXP_isme wrote: You only need hood and sentry - that's a shame. This sounds similar to an earlier point that people just want to finish in the top10 to feel good about themselves, if that's the limit of someone's ambition, fine. I'd like to do more than use the same 3 powers, rinse and repeat. Variety is the spice of life they say. If you're one of these players who dumps iso into every 3* they get, and then complains about the transition, then the problem lies with you. Hood and Sentry are all that's needed to push higher scores, and therefore get better rewards.Once those players are maxed, you can play with your other characters all you want. AXP_isme wrote: Get to the point you say. Here goes. It's now very simple to get a set of maxed 2*s and then the progression slows right down. I would contend that either something in the reward/incentive/tiering structure should change to provide a smoother progression - having too steep a learning curve or insufficient tangible progression is where the freemium model typically sees the biggest attrition of the player base (I have that on good authority from people who design freemium games for a living) - or expectations are calibrated poorly in the early stages of the game but the existing reward structure is the right one. It doesn't really matter which of those positions is more correct the answer is still that the model needs to be changed to manage expectations better. If you want to argue that they've made it too easy to get to maxed 2*, and therefore it sets unrealistic expectations on moving to 3*, then sure. But do you want to go back to the time when getting 2* covers seemed almost as hard as 3*? I remember when oBW came out, and after experimenting and realizing she was a strong character, having to wait months to get her fully covered. I will admit though in the beginning I was very casual, so maybe I took the long way. AXP_isme wrote: I look forward to reading a cogent, well reasoned and witty riposte tomorrow morning. Something like "know your place" or "I've suffered so I don't see why you, and everyone like you, shouldn't have to suffer as well". If that's all you're reading out of this, then frankly I'm wasting my time. My point isn't "I had to, so you should to." It's that this game isn't as broken as everyone wants to make it seem. I admit though I have very little patience with people who needlessly complain about how hard they have it. Either put in the work to get better, and enjoy the view once it's over.. or don't, and find something else to do.
atomzed wrote: To change the curve, d3 needs a MASSIVE rethink of the game system, the end game content, the reward structure.... many things have to change, and they are all intertwined.
benben77 wrote: 1 I want to know which top 100 alliance accept new member. give me names and i will serach them out. I m a daily player
benben77 wrote: 2 2* is same as 1* at past because eveybody is 166 i m stuck in 94 roster with 4 black parter , 3 grey black widow , 2 thor , 4 dead pool , 7 captain america ( server bug give me extra 3 cap cover) 2 sentry, 2 she hulk 2 hulk 1 I40 1 ....and get beat out from top 100 to get any 3* ( dont forget top 100 ony give you 1 weakest power) how to progess ? i know you get all 166 lv and speak loud becuase you are fighting top 50 ....
benben77 wrote: 3 The problem is too MANY 3 * cover ! How can you get 10 for a 3* to fucntion well? by luck?
benben77 wrote: 4 The game is not totally broken but is much more boken than enjoyable
benben77 wrote: 1 I want to know which top 100 alliance accept new member. give me names and i will serach them out. I m a daily player 2 2* is same as 1* at past because eveybody is 166 i m stuck in 94 roster with 4 black parter , 3 grey black widow , 2 thor , 4 dead pool , 7 captain america ( server bug give me extra 3 cap cover) 2 sentry, 2 she hulk 2 hulk 1 I40 1 ....and get beat out from top 100 to get any 3* ( dont forget top 100 ony give you 1 weakest power) how to progess ? i know you get all 166 lv and speak loud becuase you are fighting top 50 .... 3 The problem is too MANY 3 * cover ! How can you get 10 for a 3* to fucntion well? by luck? 4 The game is not totally broken but is much more boken than enjoyable I admin 2* team is fun, Daken + Ares , Storm + Magneto ( now) , Thor + BWO , bulleye + whoever but not enough to stand with full 166 roster