Season of Regression

Trisul

The prevailing theory is that cover packs are the primary revenue generator of MPQ, and so Demiurge can't afford to cater to the gameplay needs of forumites who know better than to waste their HP on packs.

Personally, I think the devs could do quite a bit of good in soliciting more feedback about potential balancing and features from players first before they implement stuff willy-nilly, but I guess that's too much to ask? Maybe it isn't. I ask!

Unknown

gobstopper wrote:

It's important that you include your roster progression as a disclaimer, because if you are firmly in 3*-4* land it is next to impossible to consistently jump into fresh brackets late. This is known as sharding and if you have not encountered it yet, then congrats to your good fortune. Enjoy it while you still can, but realize that your experience is largely different from most forum veterans.

Solid 3* roster with some 4*s, on day 420-ish. Out of the eight Season PVPs that I played, I placed Top 10+ in all but the one where I started at #495 - had to settle for #11 finish on that one. Try it some time if you don't need to get the top progression awards - it's like a LR but with real covers and ISO for your time.

dkffiv

GothicKratos wrote:

I understand OP's view point, and it makes total sense, but I just wanna play Devil's Advocate for a second, because I think it's important to consider both sides of the fence when you're talking about something;

Colognoisseur wrote:

They design the game to their average roster and their average ability at the game.

Fiscally speaking, isn't that the best way to go about it? To cater to the average player. I think a lot of people forget this is a mobile game and it's catering to mobile game players. The top percentile of the player pool is automatically the minority, and to think that you'll be pandered to is probably a little naive? Now, I'm not saying that your complaints are invalid, I am however saying that you're probably thinking a bit above the box.

What I would ask is this - if playing "competitively" (or whatever mindset you're currently you're currently playing in) isn't quite paying off the way you want to, then logically speaking, wouldn't it be time to find a new way to play?

To be honest with ya, I basically only play Daily Deadpool on any regularity. I rarely even to the whole joining PvP in the last hour thing anymore...and PvE, yeah, I only do new character PvEs and even then it's a rarity. This works for me. I don't not like MPQ, but there are simply other things that I enjoy more than require my time. Examples being playing League of Legends with my friends or watching movies/stand-up on Netflix with my girlfriend - when I'm playing League with my buddies I'm on Skype chit chatting with them, being social and the likes, and I value that a lot more than a time sink on my phone/laptop.

It's easy to think "you know, this doesn't feel fun anymore, they need to change something" - I've been there, done that on multiple games - but maybe we need to start looking inwards and thinking maybe we're not playing this game right for us.

Catering to the average player destroys games. The average player will play for a bit and then move on before investing any money. You need to at least partially cater to the hardcore. League of Legends makes its money from the people who stick around for years at a time, I think Hearthstone is the same. Pro streamers generate a lot of buzz for those "free" games which generates interest which in turn generates revenue. Pissing off your players (like with these recent nerfs) generates negative feedback and makes people not even want to touch your product.

Take World of Warcraft for instance. Easy-mode "Looking For Raid" garnered massive positive feedback from casual players but ended up killing the subscription base. Casuals would run the new dungeons then unsubscribe until new content came out (if they even come back at all). Cross-realm no-communication-required "raiding" killed the community/socialization aspect of the game and recruiting became much more difficult. Being unable to find replacements meant the veterans got fed up and ended up quitting too. Going for months without listening to your hardcore player base kills games.

dkffiv

shade_tree wrote:

gobstopper wrote:

It's important that you include your roster progression as a disclaimer, because if you are firmly in 3*-4* land it is next to impossible to consistently jump into fresh brackets late. This is known as sharding and if you have not encountered it yet, then congrats to your good fortune. Enjoy it while you still can, but realize that your experience is largely different from most forum veterans.

Solid 3* roster with some 4*s, on day 420-ish. Out of the eight Season PVPs that I played, I placed Top 10+ in all but the one where I started at #495 - had to settle for #11 finish on that one. Try it some time if you don't need to get the top progression awards - it's like a LR but with real covers and ISO for your time.

The problem is you can't be in a top 100 alliance with that style of play. The bonus cover per event is really nice and the legendary cover at the end of the season (used to be) enticing.

Trisul

dkffiv wrote:

Catering to the average player destroys games. The average player will play for a bit and then move on before investing any money. You need to at least partially cater to the hardcore. League of Legends makes its money from the people who stick around for years at a time, I think Hearthstone is the same. Pro streamers generate a lot of buzz for those "free" games which generates interest which in turn generates revenue. Pissing off your players (like with these recent nerfs) generates negative feedback and makes people not even want to touch your product.

I generally agree with your sentiments, but I think it's also wise to acknowledge that while Riot's player-first approach works for them due to sheer player volume, it is incredibly risky in the mobile market where even former mobile kings like Zynga have taken financial beatings.

There's a lot of really interesting talks and theory surrounding F2P monetization for mobile games. It's not _quite_ as simple as you make it seem.

dkffiv wrote:

Take World of Warcraft for instance. Easy-mode "Looking For Raid" garnered massive positive feedback from casual players but ended up killing the subscription base. Casuals would run the new dungeons then unsubscribe until new content came out (if they even come back at all). Cross-realm no-communication-required "raiding" killed the community/socialization aspect of the game and recruiting became much more difficult. Being unable to find replacements meant the veterans got fed up and ended up quitting too. Going for months without listening to your hardcore player base kills games.

WoW is a poor example since it's still a powerhouse (enough to draw me back in again with WoD). Still generates billions. LFR and such are amazing features, you'd be really hard-pressed to prove that 1) WoW is dead (your references to "killing" the game) and 2) "Casual" features were the reasons hardcore people left. In fact, WoW's casual approach was the reason they were so mind-blowingly successful in the first place. Lots of EQ veterans looked down on WoW with disdain at the time.

WoW is certainly still a powerhouse. Not as big as it was, but it still rules the MMO roost (and MMO pocketbooks).

GothicKratos

Colognoisseur wrote:

Right now the 4*'s feel like a waste of time because we are pouring nearly triple the resources in for something much less in return. All ready you are seeing posts saying it is not worth it to spend resources on a 4*. That is not progression and it will eventually start eroding the game from both the bottom and the top until all that is left is that zombie herd in the middle you've designed for slowly feeding on itself and inevitably getting smaller.

That's definitely an issue. I'm not saying there are not issues that need to be dealt with. All I'm trying to say it that maybe some of them are not really the preacher singing to the choir, but maybe the top percentile singing to it's fellow minority. All I'm talking about is prospective.

Colognoisseur wrote:

Early part of any new game is just figuring it out. The second part is what does it take to be competitive. The third part is deciding on an upper level goal you think is attainable with your play style. How do you know that goal? That is where the upper tier players come in. They define what to play for. They define the value in what to play for. They define where to concentrate your time and in-game resources because they figure it out.

That's how competitive gaming generally nurtures itself, yeah. You learn the basics and then you look to the top for the most effective combinations, even in things like fighting games, RTS, or MOBAs.

Colognoisseur wrote:

Games which have succeeded long-term have always made sure that very top percentage is playing for something they think is cool. Even if D3 just had a tourney where they gave out a crown which went next to your name I think they would see people at the top end work for that. They already spend resources to get an ephemeral score that lasts the length of time a leaderboard remains visible. None of this is game breaking none of this is unbalancing. If a new player shows up and they want to know what makes a good player great and they see Jamie Madrox with a crown next to his name and they find out he is the "King of MPQ" they now know what the upper limit looks like.

This is my point though. MPQ doesn't have that and maybe, just maybe, they don't want it to have that? MPQ isn't designed to be a competitive game, in my opinion. It's not Skullgirls, it's not Call of Duty, it's not Starcraft, it's not League of Legends. It's Candy Crush with Marvel properties.

esoxnepa

GothicKratos wrote:

I understand OP's view point, and it makes total sense, but I just wanna play Devil's Advocate for a second, because I think it's important to consider both sides of the fence when you're talking about something;

Colognoisseur wrote:

They design the game to their average roster and their average ability at the game.

Fiscally speaking, isn't that the best way to go about it? To cater to the average player. I think a lot of people forget this is a mobile game and it's catering to mobile game players. The top percentile of the player pool is automatically the minority, and to think that you'll be pandered to is probably a little naive? Now, I'm not saying that your complaints are invalid, I am however saying that you're probably thinking a bit above the box.

What I would ask is this - if playing "competitively" (or whatever mindset you're currently you're currently playing in) isn't quite paying off the way you want to, then logically speaking, wouldn't it be time to find a new way to play?

Yet, they don't cater to the average player. The entire design of the PvP system, does not allow average or casual play to get much joy out of it. Sure, you can play it to pick up your token and nothing else, but that will very quickly make you realize its not worth playing for that.

PvP needs to allow the ultra-competitive to play at the highest levels without making the average casual player feel that PvP sucks. How many people do you see come on the forums to post about how demoralizing it is for them to lost more points while playing a match then they do from winning it?

When this game first began, it was a very niche game. It drew Puzzle Quest and Marvel fans. Now it is crossing more into the mainstream. This market expansion needs to be grasped and allow the game to grow. This is very similar to what happened with World of Warcraft. Look at how the PvP system evolved from requiring precise organized tactic, to more of a participation award system. Along with that Blizzard raked in the cash. You would still have the elite PvP guilds, but even those players that were terribly bad at PvP could, through play, reach many of the rewards. It would take them longer, but they were not shut out. New players would also be in awe of how much more powerful the gear the elite players had, and had a target to strive for. A target that felt reachable.

TL;DR: As the game has crossed more into the mainstream, it needs to embrace the average players without alienating those that made it successful. == Also More Money, More Money, More Money.

grunth13

dkffiv wrote:

shade_tree wrote:

gobstopper wrote:

It's important that you include your roster progression as a disclaimer, because if you are firmly in 3*-4* land it is next to impossible to consistently jump into fresh brackets late. This is known as sharding and if you have not encountered it yet, then congrats to your good fortune. Enjoy it while you still can, but realize that your experience is largely different from most forum veterans.

Solid 3* roster with some 4*s, on day 420-ish. Out of the eight Season PVPs that I played, I placed Top 10+ in all but the one where I started at #495 - had to settle for #11 finish on that one. Try it some time if you don't need to get the top progression awards - it's like a LR but with real covers and ISO for your time.

The problem is you can't be in a top 100 alliance with that style of play. The bonus cover per event is really nice and the legendary cover at the end of the season (used to be) enticing.

I used to be in shade's alliance before I temporarily quit (they keep pulling me back in). I have seen his roster. He has a minimum of 9-10 166 (all the good ones) and plenty that can be 166 within a week or so if he so decided. I think he has figured out what is fun for him. He could easily have a maxed out xforce and 4thor (can't remember if he did not already max them out but he may not have since the alliance is more pve based). He can definitely compete with anyone, but he has decided that he doesn't want to spend a net negative HP every 2 seasons as you will need to buy a slot for the next new character just to "compete in the top echelon." He gets enough HP to continue to level all the good characters and not spend a dime since he generates enough HP with the way he plays. He gets to balance his work, life, and game. For him that is fun. The problem is not the way he plays, but that the game can be easily gamed to maximize your roster without the crazy time sink that most of us are using. Sorry for using you as an example shade.

Dauthi

gobstopper wrote:

shade_tree wrote:

dkffiv wrote:

Unless you are coordinating shield hops (and remember that outside of game communication is not encouraged) top 5 finishes should be the exception and not the norm with these new changes. Barring "exploitation" of the system you are putting more people on even footing and with the games taking longer its more dumb luck than anything if you are going to gain or lose points on a hop depending on how many people snipe you.

I don't use shields or alliance coordination, just carefully-timed late-starts where 550-600 points is good enough for Top 5. Adding extra buffed characters has no negative impact, and a weaker Thora is a plus, so the changes are helping on the whole.

It's important that you include your roster progression as a disclaimer, because if you are firmly in 3*-4* land it is next to impossible to consistently jump into fresh brackets late. This is known as sharding and if you have not encountered it yet, then congrats to your good fortune. Enjoy it while you still can, but realize that your experience is largely different from most forum veterans.

Yep, I used to be able to do that before I started 4*s. I can still do it, but chances are I will end up in a 12 hour + old bracket instead of a fresh one. Way too risky.

Back on topic though, I feel like I lost a little progress. I ended last season by completing 4* Thor, and was very happy. The nerf took that, but the buffed characters lifted me up a bit since as 4* transitioner I have every 3* completed. On the other hand 3*s are able to compete with me now if they also have them, so I am not really sure what to think. The last few pvp's weren't that bad, I didn't use Xforce or 4* Thor and got alright points, not as great as I was able to before though.

I think buffing is a good idea, they just need to tweak the buff to 3*s or 4*s so 4*s don't become a very slight advantage to none at all (depending on the character).

Unknown

dkffiv wrote:

The problem is you can't be in a top 100 alliance with that style of play. The bonus cover per event is really nice and the legendary cover at the end of the season (used to be) enticing.

A brief perusal of the alliance recruiting page reveals that 600 points per PVP will get you into at least a couple Top 100 PVP alliances. When I get completely burned out on PVE and being a Top 100 PVE alliance commander, I'll likely join a PVP-only alliance, late-start every event, and move even further into retirement.

Oh, and just to reply to grunth's post, I have maybe four covers for Thora / Starlord / Elektra / Fury and my XF is 5/5/2 and lvl 180. But yes, my 3*s are solid.

Sorry for all the OT posting.

grunth13

BTW, to whoever thinks sharding is hard to game, I have seen others in my former alliance game that system very well. They are 3-4* transitioners or firmly in the 4* with multiples of all the best characters. They have figured it out and rarely see any max players during their late start pvp battles. Again, this game is not hard to figure out which makes it easy to game...that is the real problem and that is how the rich keep getting richer.

dkffiv

grunth13 wrote:

I used to be in shade's alliance before I temporarily quit (they keep pulling me back in). I have seen his roster. He has a minimum of 9-10 166 (all the good ones) and plenty that can be 166 within a week or so if he so decided. I think he has figured out what is fun for him. He could easily have a maxed out xforce and 4thor (can't remember if he did not already max them out but he may not have since the alliance is more pve based). He can definitely compete with anyone, but he has decided that he doesn't want to spend a net negative HP every 2 seasons as you will need to buy a slot for the next new character just to "compete in the top echelon." He gets enough HP to continue to level all the good characters and not spend a dime since he generates enough HP with the way he plays. He gets to balance his work, life, and game. For him that is fun. The problem is not the way he plays, but that the game can be easily gamed to maximize your roster without the crazy time sink that most of us are using. Sorry for using you as an example shade.

It wouldn't surprise me if you woke up one day and found that you can't join events until the bracket is full. If you try to queue for one too late and the event ends before it fills it would automatically place you in the next time slice and wait until that bracket is full before you can start. That way they can get more HP out of you by forcing you to use shields if you want a decent reward.

KrazyKeylime

So what do you think the next step would be? It feels to me that the new 4* nerf and the boosting kinda puts the focus on 3* instead of 4*. kinda like taking a step backwards. it feels like they closed off the top of a barrel and now feels like it will start bursting at the seams in the middle. i made a post about the some potential next steps for the game.
http://www.d3pforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26374 you can scroll down further in the post for a better explanation

What do you think the next thing should be? I think we need a new earth i.e reboot with new heroes from 1* and up and player start from scratch, non-competitive events( come together for a threat event), more mini events for covers and back stories for character, and more story based content. roster slot elimination due to influx of new characters and pricing change to make most items reasonable so the game can be supported by average players not just whales.

Ludaa

KrazyKeylime wrote:

So what do you think the next step would be? It feels to me that the new 4* nerf and the boosting kinda puts the focus on 3* instead of 4*. kinda like taking a step backwards. it feels like they closed off the top of a barrel and now feels like it will start bursting at the seams in the middle. i made a post about the some potential next steps for the game.
http://www.d3pforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26374 you can scroll down further in the post for a better explanation

What do you think the next thing should be? I think we need a new earth i.e reboot with new heroes from 1* and up and player start from scratch, non-competitive events( come together for a threat event), more mini events for covers and back stories for character, and more story based content. roster slot elimination due to influx of new characters and pricing change to make most items reasonable so the game can be supported by average players not just whales.

I think the reality is that the Dev team is too small to take on the changes we would like to see. With the game they have right now, they're locked into making new characters to generate revenue. That presumably takes all of their time, and you can't hate them for it really. When/if that stops working well enough I don't see the Head Honcho saying, "Lets hire more people and turn this ship in a better direction!"

Unknown

A general question that no one seems to ask but is in many of the comments is, "What is the goal of MPQ?"

Can you beat it? no - so achievements? - no, Scores vanish after a few days. What's left? - Your roster- it's the only thing to show what you've accomplished

Now when progression is removed where end goals (like 4*) are made into worthless trophies something will happen. Players will come to realize that although the core - albeit extremely simple - match system is fun for short stints, players will get bored with an unevolving gameplay. The goals they achieved will then be changed into something worthless. The whole purpose of play - to gain/earn/rise - is removed. What's left?

Bejeweled with a Marvel logo

The problem with the current meta point systems is they force tedious play style because the reward bands are stingy. Is this to stretch out these goals? Why do only 10 out of 1000 get the first 3 of 13 covers of a new character when maybe half of those people played more than enough to earn the rewards. I guess because the top 10 don't sleep? Is that really good game design? There's a rotten core and MPQ despite having well done effects and great art with a huge backlog of Marvel to pick from. If the devs would be willing to try other games and see why they work, why people enjoy them, what's enticing and keeps people coming back. They might fix the major flaws with MPQ. We don't want to play 50 hours in one pve for fun. It's tedious. It's terrible. 12 hour double subs is one of the worst aspects of the game and a terrible half-way at rehashing old content. Remove the grindy elements of the game. The gauntlet is great despite the rewards because it's play at your own pace. Deadpool Daily is fantastic because it's play at your own pace.

Fix the core. Worry about characters later

Trisul

LoreNYC wrote:

A general question that no one seems to ask but is in many of the comments is, "What is the goal of MPQ?"

Can you beat it? no - so achievements? - no, Scores vanish after a few days. What's left? - Your roster- it's the only thing to show what you've accomplished

Now when progression is removed where end goals (like 4*) are made into worthless trophies something will happen. Players will come to realize that although the core - albeit extremely simple - match system is fun for short stints, players will get bored with an unevolving gameplay. The goals they achieved will then be changed into something worthless. The whole purpose of play - to gain/earn/rise - is removed. What's left?

Bejeweled with a Marvel logo

The problem with the current meta point systems is they force tedious play style because the reward bands are stingy. Is this to stretch out these goals? Why do only 10 out of 1000 get the first 3 of 13 covers of a new character when maybe half of those people played more than enough to earn the rewards. I guess because the top 10 don't sleep? Is that really good game design? There's a rotten core and MPQ despite having well done effects and great art with a huge backlog of Marvel to pick from. If the devs would be willing to try other games and see why they work, why people enjoy them, what's enticing and keeps people coming back. They might fix the major flaws with MPQ. We don't want to play 50 hours in one pve for fun. It's tedious. It's terrible. 12 hour double subs is one of the worst aspects of the game and a terrible half-way at rehashing old content. Remove the grindy elements of the game. The gauntlet is great despite the rewards because it's play at your own pace. Deadpool Daily is fantastic because it's play at your own pace.

Fix the core. Worry about characters later

What's sad is, there's no incentive to fix things with any urgency if the money is already rolling in (which is what I suspect).

Unknown

GothicKratos wrote:

Fiscally speaking, isn't that the best way to go about it? To cater to the average player. I think a lot of people forget this is a mobile game and it's catering to mobile game players. The top percentile of the player pool is automatically the minority, and to think that you'll be pandered to is probably a little naive? Now, I'm not saying that your complaints are invalid, I am however saying that you're probably thinking a bit above the box.

It's a good question. Someone posted this link a week or so ago in another thread (sorry I can't give credit because I cannot remember who originally posted it):

http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/26/only- ... exclusive/

Not sure whether this is correct, and even if it's correct if it applies to MPQ, but I also think it suggests its at least debatable whether top players thinking/feeling the way they do is naive.

dkffiv

camichan wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

Fiscally speaking, isn't that the best way to go about it? To cater to the average player. I think a lot of people forget this is a mobile game and it's catering to mobile game players. The top percentile of the player pool is automatically the minority, and to think that you'll be pandered to is probably a little naive? Now, I'm not saying that your complaints are invalid, I am however saying that you're probably thinking a bit above the box.

It's a good question. Someone posted this link a week or so ago in another thread (sorry I can't give credit because I cannot remember who originally posted it):

http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/26/only- ... exclusive/

Not sure whether this is correct, and even if it's correct if it applies to MPQ, but I also think it suggests its at least debatable whether top players thinking/feeling the way they do is naive.

I watched Kripparrian's Hearthstone monetization analysis a week ago and it comes to a similar conclusion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78ywEvf8fRw). According to a reddit poll (of around 21,000 people) 28% spent nothing, 55% spent $50 or less, 69% spent $100 or less yet overall the average per player is $110. Hardcores + Whales are what keep the game afloat and their suggestions should be heeded.

puppychow

LoreNYC wrote:

The problem with the current meta point systems is they force tedious play style because the reward bands are stingy. Is this to stretch out these goals? Why do only 10 out of 1000 get the first 3 of 13 covers of a new character when maybe half of those people played more than enough to earn the rewards. I guess because the top 10 don't sleep? Is that really good game design? There's a rotten core and MPQ despite having well done effects and great art with a huge backlog of Marvel to pick from. If the devs would be willing to try other games and see why they work, why people enjoy them, what's enticing and keeps people coming back. They might fix the major flaws with MPQ. We don't want to play 50 hours in one pve for fun. It's tedious. It's terrible. 12 hour double subs is one of the worst aspects of the game and a terrible half-way at rehashing old content. Remove the grindy elements of the game. The gauntlet is great despite the rewards because it's play at your own pace. Deadpool Daily is fantastic because it's play at your own pace.

While you raise an excellent point re: reward band, I think the answer is quite simple. First, by making the first 3 covers so exclusive, the exclusivity encourages players to grind, and perhaps in the process buy health packs to keep up with the pace. If you're a player who is JUST out of top 10 and out of heal packs to continue your grind, the pressure to buy the packs and continue on is tremendous because the alternative means you wasted all that time grinding for the third cover that you won't be able to get. Second, the exclusivity of newly released covers create pressure on the player base to BUY cover packs, and hope they'll get the new cover.

So while the reward scheme is indeed terrible for the player base, D3 knows what it's doing and their goal is to convince players to pay for health packs and cover packs.

Vhailorx

This is obviously a really complicated issue with the possibility for lots of unintended consequences. But it seems to me that a lot of the sentiments expressed in this thread are based a whole lot more on subjective distress over losing a valued commodity than on any attempt to objectively evaluate the changes that the have happened in MPQ recently.

(Disclaimer: I am just as likely to be affected by the same biases, so my opinion should only be taken fwiw)

OP's thread proclaimed that it wasn't just another thread complaining about increased personal difficulty with the recent changes. But most of OP's specific complaints seem to boil down to problems with increased personal difficulty with the new system (e.g., longer pvp matches making hops more variable, and ai matches more competitive; lack of 4* thor for over-leveled ares)

One slightly different argument expressed by OP, Colog, and others is the that the nerfing of 4*s threatens the fundamental endgame progression (which has been to collect 4*s). This topic opens up a broader question about what MPQ is, what it should be, and which player-group should be prioritized.

I do think that the devs have not yet sorted out what 4*s are supposed to be. Is the gap between 3* land and 4* land supposed to be as big as that be 1* and 2*s, or 2* and 3*s?

If so, then it seems to me that 4* thor and Xforce were about right. A top 3* team could be designed to beat a thorverine team, but there was always substantial risk of a devastating enemy cascade or unfavorable board. That risk meant that 3*s couldn't really compete in pvp (which mandates speed and reliable victory). At the same time, all of the other (pre-Xavier) 4*s were clearly too weak for that standard. They were just more expensive 3*s that were way way harder to get and thus generally not worth the effort (a bit too early to tell with xavier).

If, on the other hand, the 4*s were always meant to play just slightly above the level of the best 3*s, then things are totally messed up. most 4*s are actually weaker than the best 3*s, and two 4*s dominate the field. and since dominating the field is basically required to get more 4* covers at anything like a reasonable rate, it was a classic positive feedback loop where the only way to get the top rewards to already have the top rewards.

Personally, I don't see how it is possible for the devs to create and maintain a 4* tier that is just a little bit above, but still playable with 3*s. Given the speedy development cycle, there will always be outlier characters, and they will destroy any attempt to carefully calibrate two tiers that close to each other. And in the long run, introducing new endgame content is the only way to keep veterans interested. So it seems to me that 4* land really should be separated from 3* land by a big gap. That will give the devs room to maneuver with character design so that they won't immediately wreck the progression structure if they release an outlier like Iron Fist or Lazy Thor (and then 5*s can be introduced for a new trophy class as the final reward)

Finally, just to add a few thoughts on which player group should be prioritized: I think it is crazy to say that demiurge doesn't "care about" the veterans. It seems to me that MPQ is like most f2p play games: It needs to keep high-spending veterans invested by releasing new endgame content, and it needs to keep new players pouring in to provide fodder for the veterans. These two requirements are often in tension, which is why systemic changes tend to be cyclical: favoring one group and then the other (e.g., dropping progression rewards was good for vets, and dropping early roster slot prices was good noobs; vaulting is good for vets, capping the number of shields vets can spend in pvp was good[ish] for noobs, etc.).

None of this is to say that the devs have gotten everything right, or that I support all of the recent changes. I just feel that some (though not all) of the complaints in this thread are same-old, same-old complaints made from the position of players who's personal stake in the game was negatively affected by the recent changes.

TL; DR: Don't bother! it probably wasn't that interesting anyway