A new character?

OnesOwnGrief

GrimSkald wrote:

raisinbman wrote:

scottee wrote:

I'm glad for more characters. When you reach max covers for most 3*s, you need more to work toward.

Said no one ever

I found the D3 spy

Actually, I suspect most of us are glad for more characters - raisinbman is absolutely right. The need new content to keep people interested in the game or else people will quit once they max out a decent portion of their current roster. The problem is the pace. That and new characters are only nominally new content.

I really think every other week is too much. Every event is ridiculous. They said this is an outlier, but that's small comfort when they're just going to go back to the normal schedule after this. Realistically this should be it for April.

I agree with this. People do need new content but it doesn't help that this game has been the same from day 1. The only thing that felt "new" were the survival mode and the DDPQ. This game needs more than just PvP and PvP masked as PvE.

tanis3303

Honestly, they can release as many new characters as they want. They probably don't really have a choice in the matter, Marvel is likely putting the screws to them to get relevant movie characters out in time for Age of Ultron. I get that, they don't have any control over stuff like that. What they DO have control over is the mechanics within their game.

The problem isn't making billions of new characters. The problem is making it a HUGE punishment to not have these characters immediately. There's no reason that every new character needs to be the essential character for the next event. That's something you folks DO have control over, and not making Kingpin an essential character for the next event would go a long way toward softening the blow of a triple release. Missing a character is not the end of the world, a lot of people have been saying this and they're right. But, it can be a snowball effect that's difficult if not impossible to recover from when you are requiring brand new characters to win brand new characters. If you didn't win Kamala, you are not winning Kingpin. If you don't win Kingpin, you're not winning Character X, and on and on it goes. This creates a state where you feel like you're just running behind at all times, and that's no way to keep a player base. That's a way to LOSE a player base.

So, almighty Red Names, please, for the love of Odin, throw your player base a bone. Don't make Kingpin essential for the next PvE to win yet another new character. It would go a long way toward getting you some much needed goodwill from your players.

Unknown

DrStrange-616 wrote:

I don't even know what to say to back to back to back charcater releases when people have complained that even the every other week frequency was too much.

They seem determined to destroy the current playerbase's enthusiasm for this game. If that's the goal, they're doing very well.

Nope, they are determined to make as much money as possible.

And based on the statistics, back to back character releases must bring a lot of money.

As I said in the main chatroom on Linechat, D3 should start to think human beings are playing this game, not bots.

Therefore, they should give up on statistics and start adressing the concerns from human beings.

I said they should, but doubt they would...

Unknown

tanis3303 wrote:

So, almighty Red Names, please, for the love of Odin, throw your player base a bone. Don't make Kingpin essential for the next PvE to win yet another new character. It would go a long way toward getting you some much needed goodwill from your players.

You know it won't happen, do you ?

SymmeTrey

tanis3303 wrote:

The problem isn't making billions of new characters. The problem is making it a HUGE punishment to not have these characters immediately. There's no reason that every new character needs to be the essential character for the next event. That's something you folks DO have control over, and not making Kingpin an essential character for the next event would go a long way toward softening the blow of a triple release.

I agree with this. If people could more easily dip in and out of PVE events, I think the outrage would be much lower.

I do think this release schedule is dictated by A2. I believe we will see some A2 characters released soon and wouldn't even be surprised by an App Store and Google Play "relaunch" the week of A2's release, as a featured "superhero" game. I figure the app icon, title screen, etc. will become A2 themed as this is MPQ's best chance at some crossover success to bring in new players.

All that being said, MPQ seems to be rethinking a lot about the game lately, maybe it's time to rethink the "new character essential in the next event" model. Perhaps, if there were some way to to code in an "either/or" option for essentials where, for example, Kingpin were essential in the next event, but, Daredevil could sub for him in the same nodes. That way, it lessens the pressure to have one, specific brand new character.

SnowcaTT

arktos1971 wrote:

And based on the statistics, back to back character releases must bring a lot of money.

This is just one platform. But take a look at the beginning of the year until now:

http://steamcharts.com/app/234330#6m

They start releasing lots of characters, and daily play has sharply dropped off.

A nice bump from DDQ, but downward trend since then.

What I would -think- you should take from this is new content, not new characters, drives play. I suppose it doesn't drive sales though? I understand going for what sells - but at what diminishing returns? When you have so many fewer players, won't you be losing folks that could pay you?

Unknown

SnowcaTT wrote:

arktos1971 wrote:

And based on the statistics, back to back character releases must bring a lot of money.

This is just one platform. But take a look at the beginning of the year until now:

http://steamcharts.com/app/234330#6m

They start releasing lots of characters, and daily play has sharply dropped off.

A nice bump from DDQ, but downward trend since then.

What I would -think- you should take from this is new content, not new characters, drives play. I suppose it doesn't drive sales though? I understand going for what sells - but at what diminishing returns? When you have so many fewer players, won't you be losing folks that could pay you?

We should be careful to take into consideration that the introduction of DDQ has led to a larger number of people who only play DDQ and log off. The drop off in average players could be more players, less time.

optimus2861

SnowcaTT wrote:

This is just one platform. But take a look at the beginning of the year until now:

http://steamcharts.com/app/234330#6m

They start releasing lots of characters, and daily play has sharply dropped off.

A nice bump from DDQ, but downward trend since then.

What I would -think- you should take from this is new content, not new characters, drives play. I suppose it doesn't drive sales though? I understand going for what sells - but at what diminishing returns? When you have so many fewer players, won't you be losing folks that could pay you?

That's quite a telling chart. It wouldn't surprise me if the Android & Apple numbers are similar.

As the number of characters continues to grow, a new player entering the game has to feel increasingly overwhelmed. Heck, I sometimes feel overwhelmed and I've stuck with this for 140+ days. I only have 33 roster slots for a total available roster of almost 65 characters! New roster slots cost more & more HP; I'm up to 450 for my next one now. You also get token dilution, vaulting, etc, meaning that some of your characters will stagnate for extended periods of time, and it keeps taking longer & longer to make new characters on your roster playable. DDQ is the only thing that alleviates this pain somewhat, but every new 3* lengthens that cycle, too.

Eventually this continual roster expansion will break the game outright. Whether it's at 50 3* characters, or 100, I don't know, but at some point new players just won't stay (no hope of catching up absent big $$$ right at the start) and veterans will start to drift away (the 'treadmill running nowhere' effect).

Oh well. All games like this have a shelf life.

westnyy2

Initially I was also outraged, but after a few minutes I wondered why. My only issue atm is the cost of roster slots. You and I could always choose to not participate in a PVE. I am at the point where I need more content to keep me interested. Unfortunately that content is always character releases rather than story content but so be it.

I wanted Khan. She was a neat character that suited my gameplay. Unfortunately, my schedule was hectic for that event and I didn't score very high. The 24 hour subs were killers. That said, I won a couple of covers. Couple that with the alliance reward, progression rewards, a strong finish in her PVP and a couple of lucky token pulls I am now at 4/4/3. End result is I didn't dedicate my life to her and I'm in a sweet spot with her covers about to be offered again.

4* PVE's are a nightmare. You have to be on top of your game. Again, I complained about having such a big event over a holiday weekend. The result here was that it didn't matter. 48 hour subs were a god send. It allowed me to play competitively and spend time with my family. The only grinding was done while they were sleeping. The issue with him is getting more covers going forward.

So in summary, why all the rage? Why would I want a PVE to play that rewards nothing I need or want? Reduce roster slots and it will be okay. Again, I can't say enough about 48 hr subs. In shard 4 I could play at 12, 8, 4, and 12 again. That didn't disrupt work or family time. It just stopped me from watching tv I guess during the grind.

simonsez

westnyy2 wrote:

So in summary, why all the rage? Why would I want a PVE to play that rewards nothing I need or want?

Because you'll probably need that character as an essential to win something you DO want.

orionpeace

tanis3303 wrote:

Honestly, they can release as many new characters as they want. They probably don't really have a choice in the matter, Marvel is likely putting the screws to them to get relevant movie characters out in time for Age of Ultron. I get that, they don't have any control over stuff like that. What they DO have control over is the mechanics within their game.

The problem isn't making billions of new characters. The problem is making it a HUGE punishment to not have these characters immediately. There's no reason that every new character needs to be the essential character for the next event. That's something you folks DO have control over, and not making Kingpin an essential character for the next event would go a long way toward softening the blow of a triple release. Missing a character is not the end of the world, a lot of people have been saying this and they're right. But, it can be a snowball effect that's difficult if not impossible to recover from when you are requiring brand new characters to win brand new characters. If you didn't win Kamala, you are not winning Kingpin. If you don't win Kingpin, you're not winning Character X, and on and on it goes. This creates a state where you feel like you're just running behind at all times, and that's no way to keep a player base. That's a way to LOSE a player base.

So, almighty Red Names, please, for the love of Odin, throw your player base a bone. Don't make Kingpin essential for the next PvE to win yet another new character. It would go a long way toward getting you some much needed goodwill from your players.

I understand what you are saying.

But as someone who ground the **** out of the Kingpin PvE to get top 5 with the understanding, based on past events, that he would be the essential in the next event, you can keep that bone.

Stax the Foyer

tanis3303 wrote:

Honestly, they can release as many new characters as they want. They probably don't really have a choice in the matter, Marvel is likely putting the screws to them to get relevant movie characters out in time for Age of Ultron. I get that, they don't have any control over stuff like that. What they DO have control over is the mechanics within their game.

The problem isn't making billions of new characters. The problem is making it a HUGE punishment to not have these characters immediately. There's no reason that every new character needs to be the essential character for the next event. That's something you folks DO have control over, and not making Kingpin an essential character for the next event would go a long way toward softening the blow of a triple release. Missing a character is not the end of the world, a lot of people have been saying this and they're right. But, it can be a snowball effect that's difficult if not impossible to recover from when you are requiring brand new characters to win brand new characters. If you didn't win Kamala, you are not winning Kingpin. If you don't win Kingpin, you're not winning Character X, and on and on it goes. This creates a state where you feel like you're just running behind at all times, and that's no way to keep a player base. That's a way to LOSE a player base.

So, almighty Red Names, please, for the love of Odin, throw your player base a bone. Don't make Kingpin essential for the next PvE to win yet another new character. It would go a long way toward getting you some much needed goodwill from your players.

I think they're between a rock and a hard place here. Cover packs seem to be a significant source of revenue, and a character's first-time appearance in cover packs is probably a significant sale driver, and the structure for new character PvEs with the second-newest character as an essential character is probably a good part of that. From what we can see, the bulk of their development time lately has gone into new character releases. If they don't make the new character essential for the next new character release, they probably lose a good chunk of their expected revenue for the developer time that went into the new character.

Remember, under normal circumstances, that blow is softened a little bit. With normal spacing between releases, you can usually get a new character cover from their PvP during the PvE event in which they're the essential. You won't usually have them for the early subs, but you can have them by the time the big point subs come around, and usually score at least enough to get a single cover of the next new release and get back on the release train. Here, they're on a compressed schedule that's probably out of their hands, and they probably can't say anything about it as they take their lumps for something Marvel dictated.

That said, I'd be shocked if they didn't see this reaction coming from the community (especially coming right after the character nerfs and during the pvp changes), and there's stuff that they could have done to soften the blow. Double ISO rewards during the PvEs would have been nice, or an increase in sub awards. Anything to make this suck a little less.

grunth13

Not everyone can get top 100 in pvp, so one may not get the essential character. If PVP is for the vets, and PVE is for the newbies, then its gets dicey if the newbie can't get the character either way.

Unknown

optimus2861 wrote:

SnowcaTT wrote:

This is just one platform. But take a look at the beginning of the year until now:

http://steamcharts.com/app/234330#6m

They start releasing lots of characters, and daily play has sharply dropped off.

A nice bump from DDQ, but downward trend since then.

What I would -think- you should take from this is new content, not new characters, drives play. I suppose it doesn't drive sales though? I understand going for what sells - but at what diminishing returns? When you have so many fewer players, won't you be losing folks that could pay you?

That's quite a telling chart. It wouldn't surprise me if the Android & Apple numbers are similar.

As the number of characters continues to grow, a new player entering the game has to feel increasingly overwhelmed. Heck, I sometimes feel overwhelmed and I've stuck with this for 140+ days. I only have 33 roster slots for a total available roster of almost 65 characters! New roster slots cost more & more HP; I'm up to 450 for my next one now. You also get token dilution, vaulting, etc, meaning that some of your characters will stagnate for extended periods of time, and it keeps taking longer & longer to make new characters on your roster playable. DDQ is the only thing that alleviates this pain somewhat, but every new 3* lengthens that cycle, too.

Eventually this continual roster expansion will break the game outright. Whether it's at 50 3* characters, or 100, I don't know, but at some point new players just won't stay (no hope of catching up absent big $$$ right at the start) and veterans will start to drift away (the 'treadmill running nowhere' effect).

Oh well. All games like this have a shelf life.

The sad thing is in F2P games, a small segment of players(whales) fund the game so like Will posted earlier about finances being good, they prob don't care player count is going down

simonsez

raisinbman wrote:

The sad thing is in F2P games, a small segment of players(whales) fund the game so like Will posted earlier about finances being good, they prob don't care player count is going down

If they're forcing in characters to coincide with these damn movies and TV shows that are coming out, they'd better be caring about how many pairs of eyes are on them.

optimus2861

raisinbman wrote:

The sad thing is in F2P games, a small segment of players(whales) fund the game so like Will posted earlier about finances being good, they prob don't care player count is going down

Yup. This isn't my first freemium rodeo. I know how they work. 90-99% of revenue comes from the top 1% or less of accounts. The publisher inevitably ends up catering the game to the needs of the whales while simultaneously feeding them new reasons to keep them hooked. In this case, new character releases. Gotta keep the whales buying tokens & covers.

I have never, ever come close to understanding the mindset of a whale. I'll toss $2, $5 at this game, but no more than once or twice a month. I even feel a little guilty about that much sometimes. Seeing that $99 purchase there on the screen, and knowing that some people hit it? Utterly baffles me.

GrumpySmurf1002

optimus2861 wrote:

That's quite a telling chart. It wouldn't surprise me if the Android & Apple numbers are similar.

As the number of characters continues to grow, a new player entering the game has to feel increasingly overwhelmed. Heck, I sometimes feel overwhelmed and I've stuck with this for 140+ days. I only have 33 roster slots for a total available roster of almost 65 characters! New roster slots cost more & more HP; I'm up to 450 for my next one now. You also get token dilution, vaulting, etc, meaning that some of your characters will stagnate for extended periods of time, and it keeps taking longer & longer to make new characters on your roster playable. DDQ is the only thing that alleviates this pain somewhat, but every new 3* lengthens that cycle, too.

Eventually this continual roster expansion will break the game outright. Whether it's at 50 3* characters, or 100, I don't know, but at some point new players just won't stay (no hope of catching up absent big $$$ right at the start) and veterans will start to drift away (the 'treadmill running nowhere' effect).

Oh well. All games like this have a shelf life.

Numbers on Apple/Android might be similarly trending, but there's probably up to 10x as many players on each platform. I'm also interpreting that chart a bit differently.

Between shield cooldowns and PvE refreshes, this can be a very unforgiving game for Steam users who don't always have access to their account (hi!). From that perspective, it shouldn't be a surprise that they had a drop off after a few months from launch. The game isn't well suited for a PC gamer.

It's also been mostly stable for 6-7 months now, with just a (expected?) dip around the holidays.

Omega Red

optimus2861 wrote:

raisinbman wrote:

The sad thing is in F2P games, a small segment of players(whales) fund the game so like Will posted earlier about finances being good, they prob don't care player count is going down

I have never, ever come close to understanding the mindset of a whale. I'll toss $2, $5 at this game, but no more than once or twice a month. I even feel a little guilty about that much sometimes. Seeing that $99 purchase there on the screen, and knowing that some people hit it? Utterly baffles me.

I would never buy a bottle of wine for anything over twenty dollars but plenty of people who can afford it do it all the time. Most of players are FTP and they would say they don't understand people like you who spend any amount of money in a phone game, even if it's just your two dollars a month.

It's all relative. Income and lifestyle choices play a role in this. Don't judge and be grateful for those people who keep this game going.

Unknown

optimus2861 wrote:

I have never, ever come close to understanding the mindset of a whale. I'll toss $2, $5 at this game, but no more than once or twice a month. I even feel a little guilty about that much sometimes. Seeing that $99 purchase there on the screen, and knowing that some people hit it? Utterly baffles me.

Watch this, and you'll understand.

EDIT : it's better with the link :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF7aJMXU_W0

Heartburn

ronin-san wrote:

I think their hand was forced. They needed to release characters on Marvel's request, as a tie-in for the Netflix series and movie release. I wouldn't be surprised if Scarlet Witch drops by 24 Apr, with Ultron coming May 1.

Well they are doing a loss poor job with back to back character releases and a recycled event. Some new events would spark some interest, instead of frustration.