Now that D3 has officially come out on their new refund...

Arondite

Can we stop accusing them of bait and switching / robbery / any other underhanded activities? It's quite clear they only have the game's best interest in mind.

Spoit

I mean, a 30 day window. Given how most of their nerfs take about 6 months, how many times other than this IF one do you expect it to actually be applicable?

Trisul

Spoit wrote:

I mean, a 30 day window. Given how most of their nerfs take about 6 months, how many times other than this IF one do you expect it to actually be applicable?

simonsez

If I get 9 IF covers via events, and buy the other 4, I'd be crazy to sell the whole thing just to get a refund on the 4 covers. It's a nice gesture on their part, but a pretty empty one.

Arondite

Spoit wrote:

I mean, a 30 day window. Given how most of their nerfs take about 6 months, how many times other than this IF one do you expect it to actually be applicable?

If balancing is done more than a month down the road, it becomes exponentially harder to call it a bait and switch for every bit of time that passes...lol.

lokiagentofhotness

Arondite wrote:

Spoit wrote:

I mean, a 30 day window. Given how most of their nerfs take about 6 months, how many times other than this IF one do you expect it to actually be applicable?

If balancing is done more than a month down the road, it becomes exponentially harder to call it a bait and switch for every bit of time that passes...lol.

So someone who...after watching other teams rise above them in PVP and being unable to get those final 3 or 4 TGT covers finally pays for them and BOOM nerf!!! is not supposed to feel annoyed/cheated/want their money back?

But you're right. Let's not call it robbery. Let's just say it's incompetence and general inability to understand their own game, and the player base that supports them. Which you know, isn't good for THEM in the long run.

Arondite

lokiagentofhotness wrote:

Arondite wrote:

Spoit wrote:

I mean, a 30 day window. Given how most of their nerfs take about 6 months, how many times other than this IF one do you expect it to actually be applicable?

If balancing is done more than a month down the road, it becomes exponentially harder to call it a bait and switch for every bit of time that passes...lol.

So someone who...after watching other teams rise above them in PVP and being unable to get those final 3 or 4 TGT covers finally pays for them and BOOM nerf!!! is not supposed to feel annoyed/cheated/want their money back?

But you're right. Let's not call it robbery. Let's just say it's incompetence and general inability to understand their own game, and the player base that supports them. Which you know, isn't good for THEM in the long run.

You can call it incompetence if you'd like. That's a matter of opinion and you can make a case for it.

But calling it robbery isn't really even an option. That's simply not true or accurate, and that's not a matter of opinion.

Heartburn

Adronite lets just leave it as a difference of opinion. I think we are tired of debating with those of the community who think d3 has done nothing wrong, while some us feel ripped off. I myself did not purchase any of the affected heroes, but I do not approve of what they did and do not want my silence to be counted as approval of these kinda of practices.

NighteyesGrisu

Arondite wrote:

lokiagentofhotness wrote:

Arondite wrote:

Spoit wrote:

I mean, a 30 day window. Given how most of their nerfs take about 6 months, how many times other than this IF one do you expect it to actually be applicable?

If balancing is done more than a month down the road, it becomes exponentially harder to call it a bait and switch for every bit of time that passes...lol.

So someone who...after watching other teams rise above them in PVP and being unable to get those final 3 or 4 TGT covers finally pays for them and BOOM nerf!!! is not supposed to feel annoyed/cheated/want their money back?

But you're right. Let's not call it robbery. Let's just say it's incompetence and general inability to understand their own game, and the player base that supports them. Which you know, isn't good for THEM in the long run.

You can call it incompetence if you'd like. That's a matter of opinion and you can make a case for it.

But calling it robbery isn't really even an option. That's simply not true or accurate, and that's not a matter of opinion.

just to nitpick a bit, there's nothing that requires an opinion to be based on fact or reality. Thinking that D3 are out to rob us certainly is a opinion as well...just a silly one

Arondite

NighteyesGrisu wrote:

Arondite wrote:

lokiagentofhotness wrote:

Arondite wrote:

If balancing is done more than a month down the road, it becomes exponentially harder to call it a bait and switch for every bit of time that passes...lol.

So someone who...after watching other teams rise above them in PVP and being unable to get those final 3 or 4 TGT covers finally pays for them and BOOM nerf!!! is not supposed to feel annoyed/cheated/want their money back?

But you're right. Let's not call it robbery. Let's just say it's incompetence and general inability to understand their own game, and the player base that supports them. Which you know, isn't good for THEM in the long run.

You can call it incompetence if you'd like. That's a matter of opinion and you can make a case for it.

But calling it robbery isn't really even an option. That's simply not true or accurate, and that's not a matter of opinion.

just to nitpick a bit, there's nothing that requires an opinion to be based on fact or reality. Thinking that D3 are out to rob us certainly is a opinion as well...just a silly one

True, but there's a difference between

"I think D3 is out to rob us"[opinion] and "nerfing goddess is robbery!" [incorrect representation of reality].

NighteyesGrisu

simonsez wrote:

If I get 9 IF covers via events, and buy the other 4, I'd be crazy to sell the whole thing just to get a refund on the 4 covers. It's a nice gesture on their part, but a pretty empty one.

yeah, but only very few people are in this situation and if you are, maybe you can make a case for that via customer service. In any case, you'll not just get the 4 covers but also increased (but not full) buyback on the other 9 covers. I think most affected players are that got a few covers, so that purple was OP and maxed it. And those are certainly getting a good deal. since selling single covers isn't possible in the game, I don't see what more could be done short of giving full refunds for the whole character which kinda would be unfair to everybody who didn't buy covers (since those that maxed purple got a month of use on a OP character for free).

While I think releaseing a character that's so OP that he has to be nerfed within weeks of release certainly doesn't speak well for their QS, I think this solution is making the best of a bad situation. Besides unlike other nerfs this one doesn't ruin the character..he still is one of the better 3*

Unknown

Arondite wrote:

Let's not call it robbery. Let's just say it's incompetence and general inability to understand their own game, and the player base that supports them.

I think a lot of it is just lack of play testing. And it's hard to blame the play testers either when they're working on two week cycles, which begs the question why fast past for character releases? To sustain the business model? Who's the slave driver cracking the whip here?

Given that I've concluded the best way to truly enjoy MPQ, which aside from weeks like these is a really great game, is to be free to play (to avoid the constant loss of money spent on covers from nerfs) is a sad irony. It signals to me that making a great game and and the same time operating to meet the needs of a business in this day and age are often in opposition. Frankly, I think not only the fans, but especially game designers, and artists deserve better. *pops Rage Against the Machine's Evil Empire in the cassette deck, fast forwards to track "Wind Below", presses the play button, and cranks the volume*

Unknown

Arondite wrote:

True, but there's a difference between

"I think D3 is out to rob us"[opinion] and "nerfing goddess is robbery!" [incorrect representation of reality].

robbery
ˈrɒb(ə)ri/
noun
noun: robbery; plural noun: robberies

the action of robbing a person or place.
"he was involved in drugs, extortion, and robbery"

informal
unashamed swindling or overcharging.
"‘Twenty-five bucks! Robbery!’"

Nope they can call it that if they want. That's the beauty of the English language, we recognise informal uses of words and use them.

Oooh, and "nerfing goddess is robbery" could be a metaphor (just saying).

As for the new refund it's a pretty bad deal as ppl mentioned. Most ppl will have got a few covers with HP on top of a bunch of ones they earned. A fair version of this refund would be if you contact customer services and they refund you the HP then remove the covers from your IF leaving him at the version you would have had if you hadn't purchased anything.

The "enhanced" resale rate is so deeply terrible that, as soon as you make it an inherent condition of getting your HP back, the whole thing becomes a bad deal.

Also agree with lokiagentofhotness. It's not a question of how long something's been out before it's substantially altered, it's a matter of how soon that is done after an individual makes a purchase. If you buy 4Thor covers then the nerf is announced the very next day then how does the fact she's been out ages (and presumably lulled you into the false sense of security that it's safe to buy those covers now) have any bearing at all?

Unknown

i must speak out now in favor of D3

they do u guys a FAVOUR, no more no less, and u complain?
first of all, no not MOST guys won IF covers, the ones who could do so are the few toptier players. you can say most fully covered IF became fully covered by winning (but even that is a question for debate)

so if someone "won" 9 covers within a month and bought the other 4 this player seems highly capable of doing something like that again and again. whats the point of complaining?

u dont wanna sell IF since u like to play him? good, enjoy it, u will easily win the other covers to respec him, since "most" people "won" them anyway. no biggie, right?

Unknown

Let's pretend THIS TIME D3 did not wait ages to nerf a character (IF) because he was strong (IF is not OP).

Is this the new policy too ?

Unlike Sentry and Patchneto (was not playing when Rag was first nerfed), we're not going to wait at least 6 months for a broken combo to be nerfed ?

That would be a good policy to stick to.

SnowcaTT

The "Delevel" button (at a 10% loss of ISO and HP) that everyone has been asking for would have fixed this and other Nerfs. Nice buy-back, but I've seen many suggest IF will continue to be OP and they'll nerf him again eventually - which will be after 30 days. Probably well out though, so like 4hor - anyone who bought him will get the use out of him.

kensterr

You guys don't get it do you? Arondite has a few fully covered 4* Thor and he was very vocal about the need to nerf her. He got his wish and he's now happily defending everything that D3 does. A whale who is happy about the development, testing and nerfing done by Demiurge, and the business and communication policies of D3. D3 and Demiurge have got themselves a VERY loyal customer here and he's out the tell everyone else who disagrees that they are wrong.

Unknown

Arondite wrote:

Can we stop accusing them of bait and switching / robbery / any other underhanded activities? It's quite clear they only have the game's best interest in mind.

In all fairness I believe it's a step in the right direction but releasing a policy doesn't automatically absolve them of actions done in the past. The cynic in me would say that this was only the logical choice in a cover your azz move. The optimist would say look they are trying to do the right thing. But setting a policy from here on out concerning this character issue gives notice to everyone (except everyone not reading the forums) so the communication and setting of expectations are good.

But what was done is done, that's like saying if I rob someone but give the thing I took back everything is good...no, you still committed the act of robbery regardless if you return the stolen item back. Again just using robbery as an example since it's the easiest illustrative connection I could make. Just saying.

GuntherBlobel

kensterr wrote:

You guys don't get it do you? Arondite has a few fully covered 4* Thor and he was very vocal about the need to nerf her. He got his wish and he's now happily defending everything that D3 does. A whale who is happy about the development, testing and nerfing done by Demiurge, and the business and communication policies of D3. D3 and Demiurge have got themselves a VERY loyal customer here and he's out the tell everyone else who disagrees that they are wrong.

I honestly can't tell if you think this is a good thing or a bad thing.

Sounds good to me. Demiurge didn't go out of their way to do him a solid, but they won a fan. They either thought similarly or had their own reasons for reworking Thor. Ask Arondite if he even intends to sell his Thor. In any case, this policy applies to IF for most people, not Thor, so you have me twice confused. Are you suggesting a new conspiracy theory that involves Demiurge colluding with Arondite?

I benefit from this in no way and I have to agree with the OP. Good policy change. Appearance of bait and switch nerfed.

Unknown

curlymustache wrote:

i must speak out now in favor of D3

they do u guys a FAVOUR, no more no less, and u complain?
first of all, no not MOST guys won IF covers, the ones who could do so are the few toptier players. you can say most fully covered IF became fully covered by winning (but even that is a question for debate)

so if someone "won" 9 covers within a month and bought the other 4 this player seems highly capable of doing something like that again and again. whats the point of complaining?

u dont wanna sell IF since u like to play him? good, enjoy it, u will easily win the other covers to respec him, since "most" people "won" them anyway. no biggie, right?

Firstly thanks for telling me i'm toptier!!

Second.... I genuinely think most ppl will have earned more covers than they bought by some margin BECAUSE... if you are the kind of person who buys a load of covers for new heroes because yo want to max them out you probably have an amazing roster and can quite easily have won 7+ IF covers, so more than half. I know some ppl max them as soon as they finish the PvE but I would think they are outliers.

Then ppl who neither buy loads of covers NOR win loads because they play that way probably didn't look at their 2-3 cover IF and think "totally worth buying 6 covers to get them to 8-9 total covers... never mind he's not really usable in that state but...."

I was (hopefully) describing the most common situation of someone having spent HP on covers. I think it's often to finish off a hero who you've got a bunch of covers for and want to make them fully usable.

Also re: claim they can easily get the covers again... at which point will there be an IF PvE then an IF PvE progression and at the same time an IF giving PvP followed by an IF progression PvP again? It's really not easy to get a 3* going from 0 covers if you are FORCED to sell them to take advantage of this "favour".

Oh and FYI I wouldn't sell him at all... I think post nerf he's still going to be an absolute top tier 3*. I think the 4Thor issue is far bigger (well and potentially Mystique and MMN but they are lower tier so I guess less of an issue, at least IMO).

kensterr wrote:

You guys don't get it do you? Arondite has a few fully covered 4* Thor and he was very vocal about the need to nerf her. He got his wish and he's now happily defending everything that D3 does. A whale who is happy about the development, testing and nerfing done by Demiurge, and the business and communication policies of D3. D3 and Demiurge have got themselves a VERY loyal customer here and he's out the tell everyone else who disagrees that they are wrong.

I don't know if this is applicable here but it's not uncommon for gamers to attempt to justify garbage games or practices (not calling MPQ a garbage game... just illustrating) because they don't want anyone to insinuate the money they, themselves spent was wasted. So that would explain it.... although can't say that it's remotely applicable to his opinions OFC.

I mostly see this kind of thing when I buy a game (normally an impulse buy on steam where I don't do any research (like an idiot)), I play it and find out it is a buggy piece of garbage, I wander onto the forums to see if there are fixes incoming or if it gets better if I persevere then see ppl desperately trying to claim the whole thing is AMAZING and the bugs are irrelevant etc etc.

simonsez

NighteyesGrisu wrote:

maybe you can make a case for that via customer service.

Already did, and got a series of form letters...