My juice tastes like water

rednailz

Thugpatrol wrote:

rednailz wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

Lidolas wrote:

The required characters in PvE always will have a PvP event in the middle. If you keep hitting PvE as best you can, and you are half-decent at PvP, you can get the character at some point. If you've played well enough, you should do fine in the overall PvE event.

While that is very often the case, only the top 10% can win those PvP covers. Your solution omits the other 90% of players.

That's why it's a competitive game, and helps drive the compitition. I'm on board with the 2 - 3 transition being too long and needing work, but I don't jive with compaining that you have to compete for your covers, it's sort of the point.
...
I never understood why people griped about essentials being not fair.

I'm not complaining about competing for covers. My response was in the context of questioning the need for locking people out of the daily 3* who don't have that first cover. As for essentials being fair or unfair in the context of normal PvE, that has nothing to do with this issue. Essentials in PvE serve a purpose from a business standpoint, in that they encourage people to keep a lot of characters rather than just the most powerful ones and therefor continue to buy roster spots. In this case though they're using an essential node specifically for the purpose of keeping people from getting a first cover for a character, which strikes me as contrary to the whole point of the daily 3* enterprise, not to mention not necessarily sound business-wise.

Well, directly in that context from a business model it doesn't lock anyone out or lock out any revenue at all from people who dont' have the one cover. They spend money on health packs becuase they have to grind more for the reward if they dont' have an essential. And they'll sell tons of packs with the charecter for essential or for new charecter to newbs who don't know or people who know and don't care that packs are a waste of money.

From a revenue standpoint I don't get your point either. 200 HP for 3 health packs is big money.

Unknown

papa07 wrote:

The way I understand it is that this is intended to supplement transition, not replace other things. In that respect, they want a player committed to the character first. I think it is a reasonable choice for D3. It is encouraging roster diversity and encouraging hp spend on roster slots.

I fully understand that this is supposed to be supplemental. I said as much myself in this very thread. But the flaw in your logic here is that they are actually losing potential roster slot purchases by preventing people from getting their first cover for a character from this daily event. What does it matter if they're committed to a character first (assuming they've even had the opportunity to do so)?

Lidolas

Thugpatrol wrote:

Lidolas wrote:

Thugpatrol wrote:

Lidolas wrote:

The required characters in PvE always will have a PvP event in the middle. If you keep hitting PvE as best you can, and you are half-decent at PvP, you can get the character at some point. If you've played well enough, you should do fine in the overall PvE event.

While that is very often the case, only the top 10% can win those PvP covers. Your solution omits the other 90% of players.

That's true. But if a person can't get in the top in PvE or PvP, maybe that person doesn't really need/deserve/ the essential character. I know it sounds harsh, it isn't meant to be, but this is a rewards driven game.

You're confusing the issue here. They've already copped to the fact that there need to be more 3* rewards that are readily available by even having a daily 3* reward in the first place. My question is why limit it to people who have one cover for that character rather than allowing people to get a first cover this way, and I've already gone through my thoughts on that subject. It's not about needing or deserving, it's about the intent of locking anyone out in the first place.

Not to get argumentative....I posted a thought and you started quoting me. If there is someone confused about the issue, it is you. I simply said that there is a solution provided by the devs to obtain the essential character in every PvE event. Sure, it cannot be won by every player, but it is available to be won by any player. If a player is unable to win the character in either the previous PvE or the concurrent PvP events, then they aren't willing to play the game enough to be competitive. And there is nothing wrong with that. (For emphasis, not yelling ) I've taken plenty of events off or played half-heartedly. But when I want a reward, I work my tail off to get it.

The limitation is there to encourage roster diversity and more importantly roster slots. Players are locked out of essentials to give those who have done the work and spent the hp a better chance at rewards. It's capitalism. It might not be fair, but it is the world we live in.

Unknown

Like I said above this is meant to help people progress. That means strengthening an existing 3* roster. We don't want to flood 2* players with a torrent of single cover 3* covers that they have no HP to get slots for. Some might spend cash to keep up, others will get frustrated and leave if that were the case. As far as game design I am starting to think this was even more well thought out than I imagined. So kudos to the dev team, thank you for realizing that flooding the newbies in 3*s would be a bad idea.

Unknown

Thugpatrol wrote:

papa07 wrote:

The way I understand it is that this is intended to supplement transition, not replace other things. In that respect, they want a player committed to the character first. I think it is a reasonable choice for D3. It is encouraging roster diversity and encouraging hp spend on roster slots.

I fully understand that this is supposed to be supplemental. I said as much myself in this very thread. But the flaw in your logic here is that they are actually losing potential roster slot purchases by preventing people from getting their first cover for a character from this daily event. What does it matter if they're committed to a character first (assuming they've even had the opportunity to do so)?

If you open every token as you get it, you'll probably get a whole lot of new characters on which you can spend hp on. There gets to be a point where if a new player has too many new characters at once, it starts to feel like a money grab and many people are turned off by that. This game is actually decently fair to F2P players. Demiurge is trying to maintain a fine balance.

Unknown

Lidolas wrote:

Not to get argumentative....I posted a thought and you started quoting me. If there is someone confused about the issue, it is you.

No you're being argumentative!...umm...wait, what? I did, didn't I. Hmmm...okay. Fair point. My bad.

Cryptobrancus wrote:

Like I said above this is meant to help people progress. That means strengthening an existing 3* roster. We don't want to flood 2* players with a torrent of single cover 3* covers that they have no HP to get slots for. Some might spend cash to keep up, others will get frustrated and leave if that were the case. As far as game design I am starting to think this was even more well thought out than I imagined. So kudos to the dev team, thank you for realizing that flooding the newbies in 3*s would be a bad idea.

daibar wrote:

If you open every token as you get it, you'll probably get a whole lot of new characters on which you can spend hp on. There gets to be a point where if a new player has too many new characters at once, it starts to feel like a money grab and many people are turned off by that. This game is actually decently fair to F2P players. Demiurge is trying to maintain a fine balance.

While I don't entirely agree, I accept that these are fair points. If it were me in the developmental stage, I'd want the option to make my own choices. Buy roster spots if I wanted, trade a poorly covered character I don't want for the first cover of a better one, to generally make decisions for myself on what the best way to move forward is. In so much as this game has an RPG backbone, that's what it's all about. However, I do see the danger of overwhelming new players. In any case I'm stepping down from my soapbox, on this subject at least. I've made too much noise here already.

Lidolas

Thugpatrol wrote:

While I don't entirely agree, I accept that these are fair points. If it were me in the developmental stage, I'd want the option to make my own choices. Buy roster spots if I wanted, trade a poorly covered character I don't want for the first cover of a better one, to generally make decisions for myself on what the best way to move forward is. In so much as this game has an RPG backbone, that's what it's all about. However, I do see the danger of overwhelming new players. In any case I'm stepping down from my soapbox, on this subject at least. I've made too much noise here already.

I understand you're point of view. I guess I didn't really acknowledge that before.

D3 is always balancing on the a sword, damned if they do, damned if they don't. They give new/transitional players more covers, they get accused of cash grabs for roster slots. If they hold back too much on covers...cash grab on tokens. If they reduce roster slot costs, too many people reach 3* wall, 4* wall early and get bored/frustrated. I think they've done a decent job, especially the last 6 months at the balance. I might have done a few things differently, we all would, given the info we have. But the producers and devs have a lot more info and know the business a lot better than I do. So as long as I'm enjoying myself, I'll keep playing.