Unlike the Gaurdians of the Galaxy...

Unknown

the developers are 100% tinykitties,

Just last week I was saying how much I loved just playing this game, now that I was taking it easy and not worrying about being ultra-competitive and then you undo all my built up good-will in one evening. 4* reward thresholds are still pathetic. A very interesting support character, that could be game changer is a 4*, that due to the recent changes won't be useable for quite some time accept by the upper echelon. And the longer node refresh timer is gone, after being a welcome addition.

I feel the developers are just as bi-polar as my feelings for this game. You have said you want to make the "transition smoother" between 3*s and 4*s than it was between 2*s and 3*s. However, players and alliances can get 3* covers fairly easy, if they want to make a decent effort at them. The fact that you keep the three cover reward for 4* introductions at top 5, and the alliance at top 50, proves that this "smoother transition" is not what you are going for. These 4* turn alliances from social groups, that work together, into barbaric tribes that will do anything to get the scraps that get tossed to us.

You give us 8 Hr timers, because people were asking for it. And it indeed seems like it was mostly liked. However, take it away after one event, because it is just a test.

You make a major changes, true healing, MMR, shield cool downs, that are met with mixed if not negative feed back, and keep them around for.... well forever.

Oh well, it was a fun game while it lasted.

brisashi

They are catering to the whales of the game, while further ostracizing casual players.

It might make them a little money now but it will likely reduce the player population eventually, and a game like this grinds to a halt without a good sized player base.

Unknown

GuiltTrip wrote:

These 4* turn alliances from social groups, that work together, into barbaric tribes that will do anything to get the scraps that get tossed to us.

That's what alliances have always been. The 4* rewards just expose the fact that people will sell you out for a cover more than usual. I always assumed their implementation of alliances is a social experiment to verify the theory about how guys will immediately stab each other in the back when you're on a deserted island is indeed true.

Unknown

Don't you know that if 2000 players got a single alliance 4* covers, instead of 1000 players, the game would break. Of course, keeping the same reward tier as every other non-4* pve would be fair to players. Therefore, it's much more important to not break the game.

I must be an idiot because I cannot think of how that would break the game in any way.

GothicKratos

Just to touch on the whole refresh timers thing, they doing exactly what we all asked them to do which is not do new things in events that introduce new characters.

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

Just to touch on the whole refresh timers thing, they doing exactly what we all asked them to do which is not do new things in events that introduce new characters.

People that use this argument seem to forget all the other things we all asked them to do that they have not done. The OP covers this in his last couple of sentences. Many changes that are implemented as "tests" are kept despite greater negative feedback, while this one change that has mostly positive feedback gets immediately reverted after only one event. I'm sure you can understand why people are displeased.

Quebbster

brisashi wrote:

They are catering to the whales of the game, while further ostracizing casual players.

It might make them a little money now but it will likely reduce the player population eventually, and a game like this grinds to a halt without a good sized player base.

Just to play devil's advocate a little, I have to point out that D3 is a business and they should cater to their paying customers. F2P players like myself don't bring them any revenue, all we do is at best keep the paying customers motivated to pay more.

Unknown

Quebbster wrote:

brisashi wrote:

They are catering to the whales of the game, while further ostracizing casual players.

It might make them a little money now but it will likely reduce the player population eventually, and a game like this grinds to a halt without a good sized player base.

Just to play devil's advocate a little, I have to point out that D3 is a business and they should cater to their paying customers. F2P players like myself don't bring them any revenue, all we do is at best keep the paying customers motivated to pay more.

And I'd also point out that the whales were/are completely against shield cooldown timers.

Polares

GothicKratos wrote:

Just to touch on the whole refresh timers thing, they doing exactly what we all asked them to do which is not do new things in events that introduce new characters.

But they could have waited two or three weeks to see if 8 hours refresh is good (as everybody is saying) or not before a new 4* is out, they have all the power and knowledge so they can plan all these things in advance and in the end they decided to release a new 4* with the terrible old refresh system nobody wants.

They have screwed us again. You can't defend them.

Unknown

Eh, the player base is too entitled and wants everything now. D3 hasn't had a chance to process the data from the last event and yet players demand change IMMEDIATELY! Screw all the planning that went into everything else; let's just rerun Juggernaut Heroic for 2 weeks so we can put off releasing our 4* in an 8 hr refresh mode! /sarcasm.

There is probably the perception to devs that 4* are valuable and that players are whiners for wanting them so easily. Different interests + entitlement will make it so that some players are constantly disappointed. However, I do wonder how many of the devs play the game at a high level, and realize how much effort it is to get even a single cover. How can anyone say that the devs don't do anything when we just had a test for longer refresh times and longer refresh times was something we EXPLICITLY asked for? Not to mention the sentry nerf, buff to x-force, daredevil, loki etc...

Unknown

daibar wrote:

Eh, the player base is too entitled and wants everything now.

YES! THANK YOU! I remember polls being taken over the past year and it seemed to show that the majority of forum users were adults, 30+. But in recent months the attitudes seem much more like kids. I like coming to the forums to get news and info and maybe idea on strategy and just see what the general chatter is. Lately I find myself leaving the forum annoyed because it's nothing but whines and complaints.

Polares

daibar wrote:

Eh, the player base is too entitled and wants everything now. D3 hasn't had a chance to process the data from the last event and yet players demand change IMMEDIATELY! Screw all the planning that went into everything else; let's just rerun Juggernaut Heroic for 2 weeks so we can put off releasing our 4* in an 8 hr refresh mode! /sarcasm.

**** ?!?!?! Nobody is saying that, I don't see why the sarcasm. What we are saying is run normal event for new 3* with the new refresh times and if everything works, then release a 4* with the 8 hour refresh (or the 3 hour refresh if the new refresh doesn't work). As you said 4* are very difficult to win, and there is a lot of competition, so launch a new 4* with the old 3 hour refresh time NOW is nuts, it is going to be a blood bath, and it will be totally unjustified.

Trisul

stephen43084 wrote:

Don't you know that if 2000 players got a single alliance 4* covers, instead of 1000 players, the game would break. Of course, keeping the same reward tier as every other non-4* pve would be fair to players. Therefore, it's much more important to not break the game.

If too many people get 4* covers, Galactus will eat the world.

GothicKratos

gobstopper wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

Just to touch on the whole refresh timers thing, they doing exactly what we all asked them to do which is not do new things in events that introduce new characters.

People that use this argument seem to forget all the other things we all asked them to do that they have not done. The OP covers this in his last couple of sentences. Many changes that are implemented as "tests" are kept despite greater negative feedback, while this one change that has mostly positive feedback gets immediately reverted after only one event. I'm sure you can understand why people are displeased.

The past is the past, my point is, that right now, in the present they're doing what we always bemoan that they should do. They're trying to learn form their mistakes, yeah it's labeled as a mistake. I'm not going to go as far as to say anyone is entitled, but you're certainly being hypocritical.

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

gobstopper wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

Just to touch on the whole refresh timers thing, they doing exactly what we all asked them to do which is not do new things in events that introduce new characters.

People that use this argument seem to forget all the other things we all asked them to do that they have not done. The OP covers this in his last couple of sentences. Many changes that are implemented as "tests" are kept despite greater negative feedback, while this one change that has mostly positive feedback gets immediately reverted after only one event. I'm sure you can understand why people are displeased.

The past is the past, my point is, that right now, in the present they're doing what we always bemoan that they should do. They're trying to learn form their mistakes, yeah it's labeled as a mistake. I'm not going to go as far as to say anyone is entitled, but you're certainly being hypocritical.

It's less about me being hypocritical and more about you using a broad brush to completely simplify the argument. Players bemoan changes being tested on desired rewards because the changes negatively impact the experience. The 8-hour refresh change has a positive impact, yet it's the only tested change in recent memory that has been immediately reverted. Context is important.

GothicKratos

Context is subjective.

evil panda

i dunno, Rocket is kind of a tinykitty. but in fairness it's probably mostly small marsupial complex.

Mawtful

GothicKratos wrote:

Context is subjective.

Please describe the context which is not "refreshes have been changed back to 3hrs - for a rarer reward - on the very first event following the 8hr test".

GothicKratos

Mawtful wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

Context is subjective.

Please describe the context which is not "refreshes have been changed back to 3hrs - for a rarer reward - on the very first event following the 8hr test".

The context I just explained above? Maybe the context of "hey, they said they don't like us running test in events that have new characters in them" or "hey, can you test things, then talk to use about them before implementing them" or maybe even "hey, can you provide us with the metrics you're using to make decisions". All of which they're doing.

Unknown

I can understand as a policy they would like to get this right, but I think it's pretty ironic that players perceive D3 only adding changes in the middle of an event when it benefits them, and let's say this is true so that we have any benefit to D3 >>> any negative impact to player base. Well, changing the refresh to 8 hours in the middle of the event is generally viewed as a positive benefit to the player base, but what negative benefit could it have for D3? So should still be a no brainer to make the change in the mid event, no? Well, in a less cynical world, I'd assume D3 makes any change they feel is 'good for the game' even if player's perception of that change is bad during mid event. Well, I think there's a fairly obvious consenus that everyone thinks the 8H refresh is good for the game, so why not roll out this change mid event? I suppose it's possible that changing refresh to 8 hours is way more complicated than it sounds, but that'd have to be some pretty bad programming to change a variable that should not have any dependence to the rest of the game. You'd think whether the refresh time is 3 minutes, 3 hours, or 3 days, it's still just a number.

Mawtful

GothicKratos wrote:

Mawtful wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

Context is subjective.

Please describe the context which is not "refreshes have been changed back to 3hrs - for a rarer reward - on the very first event following the 8hr test".

The context I just explained above? Maybe the context of "hey, they said they don't like us running test in events that have new characters in them" or "hey, can you test things, then talk to use about them before implementing them" or maybe even "hey, can you provide us with the metrics you're using to make decisions". All of which they're doing.

Ah, sorry, I read most threads backwards (newest post first), so all I saw was "context is subjective" essentially, uh, out of context. That's a small lie, I did read the post above it.

Anyway, the entire situation boils down to:

1. "Three hour refreshes are still entirely too short. Please consider extending them."
2. "Making significant changes to gameplay mechanisms during the middle, or waning hours, of an event is a bad idea. Please consider not doing this."

Perhaps demiurge have painted themselves into a corner. Perhaps there are other options which would have satisfied both requests.
Would it have been entirely possible to schedule more than a single test event? Or delay the start of the next event by, what, about 4 hours? I'm fairly certain the answer is 'yes'.

The context is - objectively - demiurge made a conscious decision to run a single test and then revert back to the previous settings. This was not properly communicated.
(I'm expecting a refute on this point, so: they claim that it was not possible to apply the 8 hour refresh to Thick as Thieves as the event had already been created or set up or added to the timeline. So yes, it was a conscious decision.)

In the discussion about the test results, Miles actually states:

The main thing we were worried about is that a larger than average number of players would be able to play "perfectly" and get the maximum number of points possible. This would mean that we'd have a lot of people essentially tied for the top scores.

Tied points results in multiple rewards for that placement being given out. I hate to make this about money, but it's about money. They were worried that people would tie for the top score, and as such be required to give away a greater than normal number of 1st place prizes. I understand that, as a mod, you've got a certain duty to not discuss demiurge's financial decisions. So I'll understand if you don't want to reply to that.

Anyway, now that I've made it about money, the health pack conspiracy society is probably going to descend on this thread. Sorry.