MPQ Developer Q&A #2 – November - Answer Time!
Comments
-
"David wrote:Moore"]Welcome to the November Marvel Puzzle Quest
Bonus Question:
Q: Choose one: Pancakes, French Toast, Waffles.
To me, this perfectly represents the disconnect between the developers and the community at times.
We didn't mention oatmeal. That was the one thing no one was asking for. Plus, no explanation or rational given for why oatmeal should be a considered option.</metaphors>0 -
Oatmeal Dev is clearly Hydra.0
-
"David wrote:Moore"]Welcome to the November Marvel Puzzle Quest Community-Developer Q&A!
Q: Why so many new characters lately?
The Marvel Universe is enormous and encompasses an insane variety of characters and we want to make sure our game has that same feeling.
This sounds like the biggest flipping the bird response. 95% of the people are sick of so many characters being released so quickly and the rationale is because Devs like it.
Obv who cares what the player population thinks so long as the Devs enjoy it. Here is to hoping the Devs aren't in love with Heroic Juggs.0 -
"David wrote:Moore"]
Q: Why so many new characters lately?
The Marvel Universe is enormous and encompasses an insane variety of characters and we want to make sure our game has that same feeling.
So I take "having a wide array of playable characters" means that you are working on a fix for the current scheme of how to get these characters and to hold them in our roster.
According to my count there are 55 characters to collect. In order to open up that many slots you will need 20150 HP. That's more than Starks salary being offered in the store. On top of this there are currently 12 characters not available in the heroic pack: Daredevil, Doctor Doom, Human Torch (Classic), Loki, Ragnarok, Wolverine (Patch), Punisher, Thor (Modern), Magneto (Classic), Spider-man (bag-man), Devil Dinosaur (Gigantic Reptile), Thor (Goddess of thunder). That's a little over 20% of your characters in unattainable to players this month. And if thing keep going the way they are in less that a year you will have 90+ characters and over 50% of them vaulted. And the cost to get 1 roster slot for all the characters will be over 50,000 HP. In two years 65% and 140,000 HP. This is not a five year plan.
I understand the incentive to keep older players in the game but it should not come at the cost of new players either. you can not promise 100+ character in a game if 60 are out and next month the ones that they do get are useless when they switch out. And before anyone jumps on me for being in favor of the new players this is unsubstantial for veterans as well. In one year it'll cost $20 to open two slots. Six months later $20 will cover one and half slots. And three months after that $20 won't even cover a slot. So in less than 2 years in order to keep all the covers it'll cost over $20 a character.
Now that I've stated the problem I see. Let me provide a few suggestions to improve the situation.
First take one of the option presented in this form. My favorite is to have a heroic and standard token open one of many packs. Or have a base pack option in the option menu that way all the packs are calculated from the base pack you chose.
Second allow by means other than placing high in events or gathering points in events. Allow users to trade 1000 ISO-8 for 100 HP. And/or sell a max character for HP. Like so
2 power 1* for 1800HP
3 power 1* for 2800HP
2 power 2* for 4500HP
3 power 2* for 6900HP
2 power 3* for 11000HP
3 power 3* for 17000HP
3 power 4* for 43000HP
Third have an option for $5 to open a slot for all characters or gives you a slot when you recruit a new character. For example when the player gets rocket and groot instantly open a roster spot. And either delete the spot if the player sells him or prevent the sell of a unique character.
If anyone wants to check my math I've put My assumption below.All predictions of the future are based on the current price of the roster slots, an average of three added characters a month, and the continuation of swapping the same number of characters out of the packs as they put in.
The calculations of the trading of ISO-8 for HP are based of about half of what is sold in the store ie. $2 = 200HP = 1200 ISO-8
The calculations of selling maxed characters are based on the amount of ISO-8 put into a character and roughly 1000 ISO-8 = 100 HP0 -
This is one of those moments I would like to remind everyone on the forums that a fair 80% of the player base is not a competitive player and whether Moonstone can beat X-Force just doesn't matter to them. She has pretty damn good HP and her Purple is situational but relatively good. That's good enough for the average player. I even used her for a good portion of time -- up until I basically maxed my first 2* actually. Was she on my A-Team? Of course not, but I did use her frequently enough to say she was part of my usual teams. And before I got my first decent 2* she was my go to replacement for my single Purple cover Magneto paired with Iron Man and Storm (whom was later replaced by Wolverine --- and was ultimately her downfall). Point being, endgame isn't what the majority of player have in mind. The average Joe is happy to have a time sink he can play as the Avengers in or a version of Candy Crush that doesn't make him look like a complete puss or whatever other mundane thing that average people want from a mobile game.
Thank you for the downvotes, ahead of time.
0 -
As much as I don't like that dev response... umm no. Just no.itstime1234 wrote:95% of the people are sick of so many characters being released so quickly and the rationale is because Devs like it.
Even arktos' poll, with its multiple layers of biases (reporting, survey, etc.) nets 82% of responding forumites being against new-char release pacing, with almost all abstaining commenters not opposed to the current release pacing.0 -
It's a real shame the cross-play hasn't developed. I play on PC but travel with work and taking a laptop to find a wifi signal is often a pain. Being able to pick up on a phone or iPad would be so much easier. I'd play more. And probably invest more to. Now a few characters have been released ina short time and people seem to be getting burn out now is the perfect time to break and work on stuff like this.0
-
HailMary wrote:
As much as I don't like that dev response... umm no. Just no.itstime1234 wrote:95% of the people are sick of so many characters being released so quickly and the rationale is because Devs like it.
Even arktos' poll, with its multiple layers of biases (reporting, survey, etc.) nets 82% of responding forumites being against new-char release pacing, with almost all abstaining commenters not opposed to the current release pacing.
First off, safe to say that 95% was an approximation based on the massive volume of threads and comments that litter the forums.
Second, based on Arktos' poll, 82% are against release, and 7% are in favor (with 11% abstained). That translates to 92% of the participants in the survey are sick of the quick character releases.
You need to pump the brakes on brown nosing the devs. The facts don't support you on this one.0 -
HawkeyeSucks wrote:These were the worst answers I have ever seen. They avoided and dodged answers to questions they chose to answer. It would have been better they chose other questions we didn't care about.
This was my initial reaction. This q&a seemed like it belonged more in entertainment weekly, than game pro.
I was much more interested by demiurge_will's detailed post about Thoress and Hood yellow. I'd like more of that, but less of this. I don't like answers that are "we can't give details now" or "we'd like to, so we'll have to see." IMO, these leave me feeling unsatisfied and unfulfilled. I guess, if you can't really answer a question, why did you choose that one instead of one you could give us a real answer to.0 -
papa07 wrote:Second, based on Arktos' poll, 82% are against release, and 7% are in favor (with 11% abstained). That translates to 92% of the participants in the survey are sick of the quick character releases.
Firstly, It was 12% in favor, 6% abstained. Secondly, that translates to... 18% of participants in the survey are NOT sick of the quick character releases, so 82% are.
The irony...papa07 wrote:You need to pump the brakes on brown nosing the devs. The facts don't support you on this one.0 -
HailMary wrote:
As much as I don't like that dev response... umm no. Just no.itstime1234 wrote:95% of the people are sick of so many characters being released so quickly and the rationale is because Devs like it.
Even arktos' poll, with its multiple layers of biases (reporting, survey, etc.) nets 82% of responding forumites being against new-char release pacing, with almost all abstaining commenters not opposed to the current release pacing.
I do not think players are against new characters. If you look at the high scores and heavy participation in PVE and PVP when they are the rewards, it would seem to indicate players are just as excited (or more) as the developers when new characters are released.
I do think players are aggravated that the costs of roster slots and the players' ability to obtain needed character covers has been neglected by developers. I think neglected is the correct and fair term.
The roster slots seem prohibitive especially around the 50 slot mark and total lunacy at the 100 slot mark. If developers are serious about roster diversity and do not want a growing backlash every new character release, this needs to be re-examined. There will be at least 75 characters by the time of the next MPQ anniversary. While the pricing may have made sense initially when there were less than 30 characters, it is quickly escalating out of balance with each new character introduction.
Players want to cover the characters they have, whether it's Bagman or Blade. The character and cover distribution landscape has changed so much with the lightning rounds changed, 2* cover drops, the dilution of the token system, no guaranteed 3*'s in 10 packs, the number of characters, etc. When the initial cover distribution system was set up, it really made obtaining covers seem like a reward and valuable because of their rarity. I give a lot of credit to the developers for devising that system.
However, things have changed. Obtaining a cover now feels different. On one hand you feel you achieved something in that you got a cover. On the other, you have to choose whether to buy a slot or sell another character, you know you might not get another cover for that character for several months (so for all intents and purposes, it's uselss), you have to hope that character does not get nerfed by the time you get enough covers, you have to decide which character you can devote your limited ISO to, etc. In effect, obtaining a cover (specifically for transition players) is almost as much of a curse as a blessing so to speak.
We can speak MMR, sharding, scaling, new characters, end times, etc. However, at its foundation, this is still game where the goal should be to obtain covers and level up characters. Is that not still the intended goal? If it is; then, it's past time to re-examine this system. Developers should have the cover distribution and ISO system designed so both are sufficient to make progress. Even if every player regardless of rank got one (just one) 3* per PVP that was for a different that lined up so that they could obtain them in sequence (for examples 13 PVP's in a row result with a player getting a 535 build of GSBW); a player would only cover max 12 charcters in a year (if they played each PVP. In a game that will have 75+ characters by that time, that is not even a drop in the bucket.
This not counting ISO to level these characters or for other players that obtain more covers. There are no longer only 30 characters to feed ISO to. No to mention the number of 4*'s that take three times the ISO as a 3*. It is also time to re-examine the ISO distribution.
All these new improvements are great, but one should not neglect the core of the game. I really hope (especially the transition process) this gets a looksie soon.0 -
I just have to say, while still being noncommittal on some of the points, this was a much better set of answers than the first Q&A. In general they seemed less dismissive, more interesting, and in a few places far more specific. Thanks!0
-
gamar wrote:papa07 wrote:Second, based on Arktos' poll, 82% are against release, and 7% are in favor (with 11% abstained). That translates to 92% of the participants in the survey are sick of the quick character releases.
Firstly, It was 12% in favor, 6% abstained. Secondly, that translates to... 18% of participants in the survey are NOT sick of the quick character releases, so 82% are.
The irony...papa07 wrote:You need to pump the brakes on brown nosing the devs. The facts don't support you on this one.
Polls are fluid, but it is still 82 to 7. The 11 percent that voted "I don't care" or "Shut up Arktos" are not valid for either side of this argument. I could just as easily make the argument that only 7% are in favor of things the way they are, so 93% are against, but it is corrupting the data.
So, it still remains that 82 of 89% that voted want them to stop releasing characters so damn fast. We are still at 92%, which is close enough to 95% for government work and a vast majority in anybody's opinion.0 -
stephen43084 wrote:HailMary wrote:
As much as I don't like that dev response... umm no. Just no.itstime1234 wrote:95% of the people are sick of so many characters being released so quickly and the rationale is because Devs like it.
Even arktos' poll, with its multiple layers of biases (reporting, survey, etc.) nets 82% of responding forumites being against new-char release pacing, with almost all abstaining commenters not opposed to the current release pacing.
I do not think players are against new characters. If you look at the high scores and heavy participation in PVE and PVP when they are the rewards, it would seem to indicate players are just as excited (or more) as the developers when new characters are released.
I do think players are aggravated that the costs of roster slots and the players' ability to obtain needed character covers has been neglected by developers. I think neglected is the correct and fair term.
The roster slots seem prohibitive especially around the 50 slot mark and total lunacy at the 100 slot mark. If developers are serious about roster diversity and do not want a growing backlash every new character release, this needs to be re-examined. There will be at least 75 characters by the time of the next MPQ anniversary. While the pricing may have made sense initially when there were less than 30 characters, it is quickly escalating out of balance with each new character introduction.
Players want to cover the characters they have, whether it's Bagman or Blade. The character and cover distribution landscape has changed so much with the lightning rounds changed, 2* cover drops, the dilution of the token system, no guaranteed 3*'s in 10 packs, the number of characters, etc. When the initial cover distribution system was set up, it really made obtaining covers seem like a reward and valuable because of their rarity. I give a lot of credit to the developers for devising that system.
However, things have changed. Obtaining a cover now feels different. On one hand you feel you achieved something in that you got a cover. On the other, you have to choose whether to buy a slot or sell another character, you know you might not get another cover for that character for several months (so for all intents and purposes, it's uselss), you have to hope that character does not get nerfed by the time you get enough covers, you have to decide which character you can devote your limited ISO to, etc. In effect, obtaining a cover (specifically for transition players) is almost as much of a curse as a blessing so to speak.
We can speak MMR, sharding, scaling, new characters, end times, etc. However, at its foundation, this is still game where the goal should be to obtain covers and level up characters. Is that not still the intended goal? If it is; then, it's past time to re-examine this system. Developers should have the cover distribution and ISO system designed so both are sufficient to make progress. Even if every player regardless of rank got one (just one) 3* per PVP that was for a different that lined up so that they could obtain them in sequence (for examples 13 PVP's in a row result with a player getting a 535 build of GSBW); a player would only cover max 12 charcters in a year (if they played each PVP. In a game that will have 75+ characters by that time, that is not even a drop in the bucket.
This not counting ISO to level these characters or for other players that obtain more covers. There are no longer only 30 characters to feed ISO to. No to mention the number of 4*'s that take three times the ISO as a 3*. It is also time to re-examine the ISO distribution.
All these new improvements are great, but one should not neglect the core of the game. I really hope (especially the transition process) this gets a looksie soon.
I don't think the participation level means people like it. Personally I try harder when it is a new character but I am not happy there is a new one. Rather I know this character will be an essential and not obtaining a cover will make things much more difficult in the future.0 -
HailMary wrote:
As much as I don't like that dev response... umm no. Just no.itstime1234 wrote:95% of the people are sick of so many characters being released so quickly and the rationale is because Devs like it.
Even arktos' poll, with its multiple layers of biases (reporting, survey, etc.) nets 82% of responding forumites being against new-char release pacing, with almost all abstaining commenters not opposed to the current release pacing.
82% to 7% are not in favor. Any way you slice it the vast vast majority don't want more characters. Instead of taking this into consideration the response is we like it. Real head scratcher to me.
But hey keep at it with the glass is half full but I view it as completely topped up sentiment.0 -
Agreed. The pricing structure for slots beyond #100, especially, feels like an ad-hoc placeholder formula ("Let's just add 100 HP per slot!"), and my next slot costing 750 hp is unpleasant. Also agreed that the bit which exponentially exacerbates the roster-slot-pricing problem is this part: "you know you might not get another cover for that character for several months (so for all intents and purposes, it's uselss)... In effect, obtaining a cover (specifically for transition players) is almost as much of a curse as a blessing so to speak."stephen43084 wrote:The roster slots seem prohibitive especially around the 50 slot mark and total lunacy at the 100 slot mark. If developers are serious about roster diversity and do not want a growing backlash every new character release, this needs to be re-examined. There will be at least 75 characters by the time of the next MPQ anniversary. While the pricing may have made sense initially when there were less than 30 characters, it is quickly escalating out of balance with each new character introduction.
While I'm not convinced that the Iso bottleneck is a serious issue, the human-centipede nature of Essential characters encourages nonstop cover collecting, which indeed creates roster-slot issues. I'll wager that this discomfort is entirely intentional (at least qualitatively, if not quantitatively), and fuels a lot of HP purchases for things like roster slots, covers for core characters, etc. You're probably right in that roster-slot prices are scaled to an older paradigm where there were 30-40 characters in the entire game, i.e. they're outdated. I'll go a bit further and say that the "Iso shortage" problems that some people are getting themselves into were in large part caused by the massive acceleration of the 1*-2* transition. Even if everything else stayed exactly the same, the 2*-3* transition would feel slower in comparison. Compound that with an ever-growing pool of occasionally-very-useful 3*s (reducing per-char coverage speed & increasing marginal roster-slot costs) and an explosion in the population of max-2* players (increasing competition for... everything), and a "successful" transition is suddenly a far lengthier and less pleasant affair.
The challenge with such systems would be to try to reconcile them with what seems to be the underlying goal of the Essential-char treadmill: encouraging roster breadth, and the underlying goal of placement rewards: cover outflow-rate control (i.e. cover value preservation). I think that putting some (admittedly ****) 3* covers into the Gauntlet reward structure was a baby step in this direction. A logical and very-easy-to-implement next step would be to throw in a few older 3* covers as low-to-midrange progression rewards for the Seasonal SHIELD Sim/Versus event: 2* players would still need to work for it, but it's not significantly above the L166 wall the way the 2400 prog cover is.stephen43084 wrote:...it's past time to re-examine this system. Developers should have the cover distribution and ISO system designed so both are sufficient to make progress. Even if every player regardless of rank got one (just one) 3* per PVP that was for a different that lined up so that they could obtain them in sequence (for examples 13 PVP's in a row result with a player getting a 535 build of GSBW); a player would only cover max 12 charcters in a year (if they played each PVP. In a game that will have 75+ characters by that time, that is not even a drop in the bucket.
While I think that giving literally every participating player one 3* cover per PVP would gum up the progression timeline a good bit for true newbies, giving dedicated max-2* players a guaranteed 3* cover per PVP would help the transition a lot -- something like an old 3* cover at 500 points. But, all of this is predicated upon the assumption that the devs are willing to dramatically reduce their direct control over what proportion of the playerbase gets "valuable" covers. Noting the quality and attainability of 3* progression covers in the Gauntlets and SHIELD Sim, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
On top of that, the Season-placement system would also interfere with alternative reward systems which could help transitioners, like simultaneous, mutually exclusive "Normal" and "Veteran" PVP events, or an inversion of the HP placement-reward tiers (i.e. lower placement gets more HP + fewer 3* covers, higher placement gets less HP + more 3* covers).
It's a tangled web.
Totes. I think/hope the devs are well into their transition looksie. It's a problem that's been pretty clear (and becoming ever-clearer) for months now, and one that I'm pretty sure affects what may be one of the most important segments of MPQ's playerbase.stephen43084 wrote:I really hope (especially the transition process) this gets a looksie soon.0 -
Mmmm, that's a nice backpedal: "are sick of" suddenly became "are not in favor." I don't see a problem with your newly minted "vast majority" point, even though it's (ex post facto) based on a fundamentally flawed poll whose own comment thread explicitly notes some of the views it completely omits -- views which are overwhelmingly in favor of the new-char releases. I'm sure that was entirely by accident.itstime1234 wrote:
82% to 7% are not in favor. Any way you slice it the vast vast majority don't want more characters. Instead of taking this into consideration the response is we like it. Real head scratcher to me.HailMary wrote:
As much as I don't like that dev response... umm no. Just no.itstime1234 wrote:95% of the people are sick of so many characters being released so quickly and the rationale is because Devs like it.
Even arktos' poll, with its multiple layers of biases (reporting, survey, etc.) nets 82% of responding forumites being against new-char release pacing, with almost all abstaining commenters not opposed to the current release pacing.
But hey keep at it with the glass is half full but I view it as completely topped up sentiment.
I'm just noting that blatantly making s--- up for funsies is a silly way to support an argument.
0 -
HailMary wrote:
Mmmm, that's a nice backpedal: "are sick of" suddenly became "are not in favor." I don't see a problem with your newly minted "vast majority" point, even though it's (ex post facto) based on a fundamentally flawed poll whose own comment thread explicitly notes some of the views it completely omits -- views which are overwhelmingly in favor of the new-char releases. I'm sure that was entirely by accident.itstime1234 wrote:
82% to 7% are not in favor. Any way you slice it the vast vast majority don't want more characters. Instead of taking this into consideration the response is we like it. Real head scratcher to me.HailMary wrote:
As much as I don't like that dev response... umm no. Just no.itstime1234 wrote:95% of the people are sick of so many characters being released so quickly and the rationale is because Devs like it.
Even arktos' poll, with its multiple layers of biases (reporting, survey, etc.) nets 82% of responding forumites being against new-char release pacing, with almost all abstaining commenters not opposed to the current release pacing.
But hey keep at it with the glass is half full but I view it as completely topped up sentiment.
I'm just noting that blatantly making s--- up for funsies is a silly way to support an argument.
Yeah I totally factiously made up a number that is so far off from the general opinion. You seeing no problem. What a shocker. Stop the presses, who could have possibly foresaw that outcome materializing.
You don't have a problem, good for you, not recognizing its in the absolute minority of the general view is another matter.0 -
Take a deep breath.itstime1234 wrote:Yeah I totally factiously made up a number that is so far off from the general opinion. You seeing no problem. What a shocker. Stop the presses, who could have possibly foresaw that outcome materializing.
You don't have a problem, good for you, not recognizing its in the absolute minority of the general view is another matter.
Now, this time, actually read my comment, instead of skimming every third word and using "artistic license" on the remainder. If you feel that that's a tall order, just focus on the "I don't see a problem with your newly minted 'vast majority' point" bit.0 -
Wow. What on earth does it matter what the precise percentage on a single forum poll is? Is that really the main concern here? It's still fairly clear that the vast majority find the tidal wave of new character releases to be impractical, for whatever reason.
I really like new characters. As the devs said, they can in fact be awesome. But that's hardly the point. The point is that awesome or otherwise, the rate at which they're being released is causing problems on numerous levels (HP expense for slots, iso for levelling up, and removing characters during seasons from tokens because of there being too many, just to name a few).
New characters in and of themselves are not the problem here. It's the fact that there doesn't seem to be any connection between releasing them, and how people are ever meant to keep/level them, at this rate. Arguments of 'we want people to have a diverse roster' are inconsequential if people have no way of keeping/using that roster.
The fact that the forum consists of a relatively small group of players isn't really a good argument for why the views here should be dismissed. A lot of new players may not even know of the forums, but are still facing the same problems (arguably moreso than vets, on some matters). And if you take a quick trip to the FB page, you will see exactly the same concerns by a much larger number of people there. This isn't the only place people are expressing dissatisfaction (or satisfaction, before anyone starts to derail this whole thing based on one omitted word).
Edit: Changed one letter. Made all the difference. No, really.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.9K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.3K MPQ General Discussion
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2K MPQ Character Discussion
- 171 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.3K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 6.2K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 13.7K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 508 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.4K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 99 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 424 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 300 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.7K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 381 Other Games
- 142 General Discussion
- 239 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements