IceIX or Devs, I want to call something out

Unknown

IceIX wrote:

I don't want anyone to drop from the game and that's not our intent when making changes.

I'm sure that is not the intent. Yet that is the effect. And even those who not leave outright stay with sour mouth. Mostly for idle hope -- and for hardness to let go what they gathered up in the last months. But that is just a cushion. All the blows keep a notch. And the sour keeps building.

How many reports you can read recently that people were running home from work to play and play on. And now maybe log in to get the daily. Or play 1-2 something and leave. The reports of points from recent tournaments is not enough indication? I barely entered the punisher2 and left it there abandoned. (originally was to go for #2 at least). and after 48 hours still got 3 thor covers. Instead of finishing absolutely nowhere as it would have been the case 1-2 weeks ago.

Some reported to turn out first with puny 504 points.

How many of those grinding all the previous events just left thivies at half -- abandoning all the work to that point and the DD cover that as predicted is a must just few days on? You think that just happens? That it can happen for anything lightweight? No, you did the equivalent of bagging our head and beating it with stick before dropping us into a river. And then with a big smile pretend to be the good guys and poor souls bound by lack of time and tight schedule. That is just more of that rdiculously arrogant behavior. Without any sign that it will ever change for better.

As before dealing with a problem you should at least acknowledge the problem. That it exist. That you created it. That you own it. And eventuyally will own the solution -- and work on it.

IceIX wrote:

Some of our recent changes have been contentious and *could* cause that, yes. But what we want to monitor is player behavior over retention. If retention drops, that's a huge red flag and something we want to avoid (as should be obvious).

Aha. Great tactics -- it's like putting the tactile sensors on your car bumpers, pedal to the metal and start worrying when it starts to signal you are hitting something.

If you drive the system where those numbers show people leaving you no longer have any chance to stop the trend. It's just too lats, as too many effects are delayed for the observation. When exodus is measurable you already lost ALL bits of credibility, no one believes that any your reaction is either honest or will lead to actual improvement. The way to deal with it is prevention. Learn from Stardock how they avoided crossing over -- barely.

Unknown

Spoit wrote:

IceIX wrote:

justaplayer wrote:

No one likes negative criticism but it is that criticism you should be really paying attention to. Waiting to see how many people drop from your game to tell whether it is a good decision that was made in the last patch is kinda backwards. (You stated something to this effect in a thread somewhere and I'm paraphrasing)
Why let your most passionate players get angry and quit?. These are the folks who recommend your game to others when they love it.

That's quite a paraphrase since I don't want anyone to drop from the game and that's not our intent when making changes. Some of our recent changes have been contentious and *could* cause that, yes. But what we want to monitor is player behavior over retention. If retention drops, that's a huge red flag and something we want to avoid (as should be obvious). But if player behavior changes, we can see why that was and if the change that we made did what we expected it to do.

So if you want them to notice, instead of whining, you should put up and shut up and not play any more

Thanks for your intellectual input Sparky

IceIX

Spoit wrote:

So if you want them to notice, instead of whining, you should put up and shut up and not play any more

Wow, exactly the opposite and I have no idea how you could get that from what I said. We *don't* want retention to drop. If you don't play anymore, that accomplishes what we don't want you to do. What we do want is to guide players towards playing more how we believe the game is best played. Hence balancing and changing of costs of things amongst other things. Once we make a change, we monitor it and see if players are now doing more of what should be happening as opposed to playing in a way that they're only doing because the game is flawed in some aspect. No. If you don't like a change, work with the current functionality, compare to previous, analyze why you don't like it, and communicate that to us in a constructive fashion. Dropping off the face of the Earth doesn't tell us *what* you didn't like and doesn't solve much of anything.

Unknown

IceIX wrote:

Spoit wrote:

So if you want them to notice, instead of whining, you should put up and shut up and not play any more

Wow, exactly the opposite and I have no idea how you could get that from what I said. We *don't* want retention to drop. If you don't play anymore, that accomplishes what we don't want you to do. What we do want is to guide players towards playing more how we believe the game is best played. Hence balancing and changing of costs of things amongst other things. Once we make a change, we monitor it and see if players are now doing more of what should be happening as opposed to playing in a way that they're only doing because the game is flawed in some aspect. No. If you don't like a change, work with the current functionality, compare to previous, analyze why you don't like it, and communicate that to us in a constructive fashion. Dropping off the face of the Earth doesn't tell us *what* you didn't like and doesn't solve much of anything.

I thought he was directing that at those who were complaining he didn't appear to have much thought behind the statement.

I am glad to see you responding please give us some feedback on why you won't fix some of the really bad characters before nerfing the good ones.

Unknown

IceIX wrote:

Spoit wrote:

So if you want them to notice, instead of whining, you should put up and shut up and not play any more

Wow, exactly the opposite and I have no idea how you could get that from what I said. We *don't* want retention to drop. If you don't play anymore, that accomplishes what we don't want you to do. What we do want is to guide players towards playing more how we believe the game is best played. Hence balancing and changing of costs of things amongst other things. Once we make a change, we monitor it and see if players are now doing more of what should be happening as opposed to playing in a way that they're only doing because the game is flawed in some aspect. No. If you don't like a change, work with the current functionality, compare to previous, analyze why you don't like it, and communicate that to us in a constructive fashion. Dropping off the face of the Earth doesn't tell us *what* you didn't like and doesn't solve much of anything.

Ok, I dislike having 13/15 missions having lvl 230's without even having a meat shield available for selection. Hehe

IceIX

justaplayer wrote:

I am glad to see you responding please give us some feedback on why you won't fix some of the really bad characters before nerfing the good ones.

Because players are invested in a certain few characters and a certain few playstyles which gets cemented more and more as time goes on. Without doing something to shake them out of that, most players will not consider a new play style with other characters. In this case, Thorverine were so dominant that even if we brought 3 other characters up to their level, players would be content with simply using them for everything. It's not that we won't get around to poor characters. To use a somewhat recent fighting game analogy, Wolverine was like Sagat in Street Fighter 4. He was so dominant a strategy he needed to be taken down for any other serious balancing to be done.

Edit: That being said, both characters are still very strong 2* characters and still used to great effect by the playerbase. Unlike poor Sagat that got moved from God to B-ish tier.

Unknown

IceIX wrote:

Spoit wrote:

So if you want them to notice, instead of whining, you should put up and shut up and not play any more

Wow, exactly the opposite and I have no idea how you could get that from what I said. We *don't* want retention to drop. If you don't play anymore, that accomplishes what we don't want you to do. What we do want is to guide players towards playing more how we believe the game is best played. Hence balancing and changing of costs of things amongst other things. Once we make a change, we monitor it and see if players are now doing more of what should be happening as opposed to playing in a way that they're only doing because the game is flawed in some aspect. No. If you don't like a change, work with the current functionality, compare to previous, analyze why you don't like it, and communicate that to us in a constructive fashion. Dropping off the face of the Earth doesn't tell us *what* you didn't like and doesn't solve much of anything.

Also it is always nice when people can complain in a nice constructive fashion but when people have invested time effort and energy and are very frustrated at what they perceive is a wrong things don't always come out as you want to hear them. These are complaints and customer service people have to develop a bit of thick skin when dealing with the customer. Ignoring complaints because they didn't say pretty please is only shooting yourself in the foot because that is when people stop playing. You say you want them to convey what is wrong . They have. Just not all nice with a bow. I get where you coming from I have been their but you just have to suck it up. In the end keeping the customer happy, paying and playing is what is important right?

Also just to add that if everything is always nice and laid back there really isn't as much seriousness attached to it and it can easily be shelved for later. Only when people get really annoyed do they start getting any attention. Hate to say it but its true try complaining to tier 1 at a cable company

Unknown

IceIX wrote:

justaplayer wrote:

I am glad to see you responding please give us some feedback on why you won't fix some of the really bad characters before nerfing the good ones.

Because players are invested in a certain few characters and a certain few playstyles which gets cemented more and more as time goes on. Without doing something to shake them out of that, most players will not consider a new play style with other characters. In this case, Thorverine were so dominant that even if we brought 3 other characters up to their level, players would be content with simply using them for everything. It's not that we won't get around to poor characters. To use a somewhat recent fighting game analogy, Wolverine was like Sagat in Street Fighter 4. He was so dominant a strategy he needed to be taken down for any other serious balancing to be done.

I see your reasoning and that makes sense to a point. However if other strategies with new characters(meaning newly buffed) are working then they will get beat. Not all players play that way I for one wasn't using either character but I still was upset that they got nerfed because I was trying to get them playable. I think you would find with more variety of good characters you would see people use other things when other players showed they were viable options. If they were still overpowered then knock them down some and explain why. I think people would be much more receptive


Edit: Also many of us myself included think Thor has been overly weakened. Wolverine is not quite as bad.

Unknown

I'd argue, and i believe that several others as well that Thor is fine, the 9 green tile generation can enable some absurd plays

Unknown

MTGOFerret wrote:

I'd argue, and i believe that several others as well that Thor is fine, the 9 green tile generation can enable some absurd plays

Well keep playing him then and I will keep thrashing you when I see him.

Unknown

justaplayer wrote:

MTGOFerret wrote:

I'd argue, and i believe that several others as well that Thor is fine, the 9 green tile generation can enable some absurd plays

Well keep playing him then and I will keep thrashing you when I see him.

No idea why i would use Thor other then the current Thor event since my 3* team of Hulk, Patch, and Spidey is much more useful

Unknown

IceIX wrote:

What we do want is to guide players towards playing more how we believe the game is best played. Hence balancing and changing of costs of things amongst other things.

I have a radical suggestion for you then - why don't you (or someone) could out and actually explain how you feel the game should be best played? At the moment everyone is just guesstimating based on how we feel the changes are forcing us to play. Why doesn't someone come out with a straight answer? Why doesn't someone tell us what your aims are? Why are we forced to guess rather than someone being open with us?

Unknown

DaveyPitch wrote:

IceIX wrote:

What we do want is to guide players towards playing more how we believe the game is best played. Hence balancing and changing of costs of things amongst other things.

I have a radical suggestion for you then - why don't you (or someone) could out and actually explain how you feel the game should be best played? At the moment everyone is just guesstimating based on how we feel the changes are forcing us to play. Why doesn't someone come out with a straight answer? Why doesn't someone tell us what your aims are? Why are we forced to guess rather than someone being open with us?

I can't speak for anyone officially as I'm just another player, but I'd like to offer the following answer:

In most cases, people like IceIX have no direct control (or even direct knowledge beforehand) over development, changes, schedules, and the like. They are on what is referred to in most cop dramas as a "need to know basis", and treated similarly. In addition to this, there are strict rules on what they can and cannot say to, or tell players. This is not a game issue, nor even a D3 issue... This is how it is for 99% of all CSR/CMs everywhere, in all games, genres, and businesses.

All it takes is one person high up saying "it is not our job or desire to reveal what our ultimate goal is" and the gag order, so to say, is slapped onto everyone below them.

I am really simplifying how it happens, but I just want to make it clear this is a strong and likely POSSIBILITY, which would answer your question as best as anyone can.

That said? I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment: Everyone's lives would be a LOT easier if we knew what their ultimate goal is. What kind of balance? What ranking should be accessible to new players, what shouldn't? Etc etc.

Spoit

IceIX wrote:

Spoit wrote:

So if you want them to notice, instead of whining, you should put up and shut up and not play any more

Wow, exactly the opposite and I have no idea how you could get that from what I said. We *don't* want retention to drop. If you don't play anymore, that accomplishes what we don't want you to do. What we do want is to guide players towards playing more how we believe the game is best played. Hence balancing and changing of costs of things amongst other things. Once we make a change, we monitor it and see if players are now doing more of what should be happening as opposed to playing in a way that they're only doing because the game is flawed in some aspect. No. If you don't like a change, work with the current functionality, compare to previous, analyze why you don't like it, and communicate that to us in a constructive fashion. Dropping off the face of the Earth doesn't tell us *what* you didn't like and doesn't solve much of anything.

We've tried communicating the shortcomings of systems, especially wrt to matchmaking, but every single change seems to be moving the oposite direction from what most of the reasonable people in the forum try to suggest. Many people said that the skip tax would be perfectly fine if the matchmaking was fixed, and I'm not sure you can find many people to argue that it's in a better place than pre-shields. Or take Misguided's suggestions about offering a carrot instead of, or at least in addition to, the stick.

While I do appreciate that you take the time and effort to try to communicate, constructive arguments don't seem to work unless they're aligned to what you were pre-disposed to do anyway.

(The thor change was fine, his yellow isn't the nuke it used to be, but it's arguably better. However the rag nerf? If Sagat went to being a B-level character, Rag must be a C. At best)

kensterr

Let it be clear that my playing statistics (or whatever data the server collects) is not because I enjoy the new Heroic mode with it's stupid broken mob levels, but because I really need the ISOs to level up my characters. Not gonna spend anymore ISO and HP on boosts just so that I can pass a certain mission to get rewards and points. The end rewards of finishing those level 100++ mobs and Dark Avengers with boosts isn't all that great IMHO.

Unknown

You (the devs) say you want people to play and diversify their rosters however with each update my ability to play gets less. If my ability to play is less then i earn less iso/hp. If i earn less hp i cant get more roster spots, If i earn less iso i cant level my roster. Yes i can buy hp and yes i can buy iso, but i shouldnt always have to buy. The last tourny was broke, but playable. So to combat this you mess with boost costs and fix patch wolvie! Even so we still manage to tank to make the event playable. I wait patiently for the next tourney knowing(praying) the previous problems will be fixed. Nope, not fixed, infact more broken than the first and to help us you remove tanking.

Can you not see a pattern here? each update you make to the game makes it less and less playable.

Unknown

IceIX wrote:

Spoit wrote:

So if you want them to notice, instead of whining, you should put up and shut up and not play any more

Wow, exactly the opposite and I have no idea how you could get that from what I said. We *don't* want retention to drop. If you don't play anymore, that accomplishes what we don't want you to do. What we do want is to guide players towards playing more how we believe the game is best played. Hence balancing and changing of costs of things amongst other things. Once we make a change, we monitor it and see if players are now doing more of what should be happening as opposed to playing in a way that they're only doing because the game is flawed in some aspect. No. If you don't like a change, work with the current functionality, compare to previous, analyze why you don't like it, and communicate that to us in a constructive fashion. Dropping off the face of the Earth doesn't tell us *what* you didn't like and doesn't solve much of anything.

Take it easy: it's not coming from anything you stated directly.

But it clearly follows from all happening and related notes and/or lack of them.

Wizard's Fifth Rule

“Mind what people do, not only what they say, for deeds will betray a lie.”
―Soul of the Fire: Chapter 28, page 205

-- --
We really tried it all, suggestion thread if filled with trivia, repeated over months. Here you were told everything possible dozens of times. Maybe you don't listen, maybe you do listen just to ignore, it leads to no real difference: the game arrived to not fun state in last weeks and to non-playable state in the last. While you sound all the same as ever, like in a blindfolded run. Implying that some data might get analyzed for change patterns sometimes ahead and maybe some reaction to that will happen too.

Good luck with that, I still see it as the appendectomy case scheduled for two months later.

Also good luck with approach of herding players to play it by your plan coming from some excel sheet -- the state clearly shows no one in your company played it in months, and likely played through a tournament NEVER. just to have that first-hand experience. just like the PVP was only tested by a robot program.

It's again that crazy idea trying do both parts of an alternative. You can puch players on some road IF you play bigtime yourself and know how it's done. Or if you ignore playing completely, you should listen to those doing all that playtesting for you. Doing the bad combination? Well, that is what leaves you with this baffle, how come people move against your *intentions*.

The real world never gives a damn about your intention, but it does react to the force you apply. And all force you apply lately uniformly pushes people to abandon hope and leave. Really sad indeed but that's tha only thing we can work with ATM.

Unknown

IceIX wrote:

justaplayer wrote:

Because players are invested in a certain few characters and a certain few playstyles which gets cemented more and more as time goes on. Without doing something to shake them out of that, most players will not consider a new play style with other characters.

Aha, and if an even that can be played with only 10-ish charactes they don't have at all or sitting at lvl6-16 but facing 80+ then shortly 180+ mobs will help it how?

maybe if you announced such event coming in 3 weeks they could build up some army if bothered. This is just throwing people to the zombies and look how they are eaten. Eben if someone has some spare ISO I doubt he'd dump it into Hawkeye just to last 2 more turns before going down.

If you just run 18 hour rotation of tournamenst like women, dark avengers, other groups in permanent rotation thinking up more interesting subsets people would pick some fitting their state and style and develop the variable key characters.

But the key idea is always the same: announcements all ahead, allow preparation. Providing playtesting arena "XXX training" would be welcome addition.

But nothing like that happening, only repeated wishes for some state of game add to idle words bucket.

Unknown

kensterr wrote:

Let it be clear that my playing statistics (or whatever data the server collects) is not because I enjoy the new Heroic mode with it's stupid broken mob levels, but because I really need the ISOs to level up my characters. Not gonna spend anymore ISO and HP on boosts just so that I can pass a certain mission to get rewards and points. The end rewards of finishing those level 100++ mobs and Dark Avengers with boosts isn't all that great IMHO.

I think this is actually fairly important: if you hate an event, don't play it. Grind SHIELD Training or a tournament (assuming you can at least go for the low-hanging progression there) if you must gather ISO rather than, you know, doing something you might enjoy. imo you're always best off waiting for LRs to roll around if you want low-effort ISO, at least until they fix that too by scaling seed teams to level 230. Demiurge do read our kvetching here, but they seem to be the sorts to believe hard data can't lie, so if it contradicts common sense and what invested customers are outright telling them, they'll go with the data.

Not that I can talk. I have little below lv200 and nothing that can realistically beat that in less than 45 minutes per game even with luck, and I'm still peering at the mission board trying to figure out the minimum effort path to that C.Storm I do want before I abandon this embarrassment of an event.

Unknown

Pay 2 play vs Pay 2 win.

When we had us some awesomely powered heroes,
Pre nerf - Loki rags Thor wolvie. (Storm c vs storm c tempest battle HAD to stop)
Bugged patch.
Current Mag C

The game was Pay 2 Win but it was not pay 2 play.
I don't consider games purchased for $5-$60 or whatever in whatever form pay 2 play. I am speaking from a FREE 2 play game standpoint.

Pay 2 win - you play at your leisure and spend money to gain a competitive edge due to enjoyment of the game. This is nearly unavoidable for any company who wants to profit. When *most* people spend they want more than cosmetics.


Pay 2 play - limited HEAVILY by health packs or whatever form of regen. You can typically play for 5-10 minutes an hour or maybe 1-2 hours a day freely. You then must pay to regen your lives or whatever have you. This is completely avoidable.
MPQ had this pay 2 play feature but due to awesome heroes we could still manage tons of play without spending (and I would constantly drop 200hp on health packs because I knew 5 health packs would give me another hour+ of play, not 10 minutes).


All the recent changes have made this game lean VERY heavily into the Pay2Play spectrum that I personally consider dangerous territory. Every1 that complains about Pay2Win obviously hadn't experienced much Pay2Play. I have not, nor will I ever, buy another health pack as long as I feel like I am being forced to do so.

On another note, many people mention things like "who wants to play a superhero game to get beat up all day".
Let's look at our heroes and villains (for simplicity I will just generalize as heroes).
Magneto C - can kill you with the iron in your blood....
Wolverine - basically made if admantium and pretty much immortal
Thor Loki ares storm etc etc - umm... Gods? Hello?
Iron man - a multi billion dollar metal war suit controlled by a smart rich ****. Awesome
The hulk - enough said

Pyromaniac - random dude who likes fire
Thug - petty criminal who steals old ladies purses
Lieutenant and other military like personnel - I was in the military, none if us gonna fk wit no superhero

Why in the world can a Pyromaniac kill not only 1 but ALL 3 of my heroes with 1 silly strike.

People like super heroes and super hero games because they are total bad ****. We play so we can use their many awesome powers to devastate our enemies and rise to glory!!!!


TLDR (someone inform me of this acronyms meaning?) version - entice us to play and to pay by giving us awesome heroes with awesome powers in a fun easy to play game. We don't want our heroes getting pounded by minions and we don't want to be forced to buy anything. A large number of us love spending our disposable income (whether that be $10/month or $500/month) on our chosen games. I would seriously love to have a reason to invest another $50 in this game. I was gonna drop a $20 on payday but 2 days prior boost prices / horrible timing of nerfs negated that desire. Entice us to spend with means like these and don't force us to spend by crippling our characters and releasing people like captain kill himself (ares) so that health packs become necessity rather than choice.