The devs have done well

Unknown

Derethus wrote:

Also no one is complaining about the wolvie and thor nerfs. It's more a question of the timing they chose to roll out the nerfs.

Actually quite many people do.

But it's not productive to mix up complaints really -- there is a wide group that is in term with the nerf content (or actively happy about it regardless having the said characters or not) but can't agree with the ways of handling the situation and the general direction of the game.

Unknown

Typhon13 wrote:

Um, if you skipped through just about any pvp, almost everyone had a high level Thor or wolvie. They were the many, the guys who didn't were the few.

Interesting, in 50-ish days in game and having like 90% of all ** covers on my roster (and selling off insane amount, enough to build 1-2 extra volverines, obw and captains) my Thor was still sitting with 7 covers evenly spread at ~lvl22. Only in the most recent days tokens started to drop him and tournaments too.

(IME the supposedly random tokens look rigged toward certain characters that changes over time, so masked away in cumulated statistics.)

Guess there was a sellout of Thor just before the steam version of the game went live and I arrived to ** range when volverine was featured, then OBW and with a gap of mix Ares. Seem now Thor starts a new cycle so people can rebuild to new spec.

darkmagearcanis

Demiurge_Will wrote:

If you earn a bunch of currency through play, buy a bunch of currency, and spend a bunch of currency in a bunch of different places, there's no clear way to determine that a particular batch of Iso-8/Hero Points was bought for a particular purpose. It has less to do with technical issues (though anything that would have to do with scraping the game's logs and doing something on the server in response would require engineering effort that we'd rather use to make the game better) and more to do with the nature of a currency. Increasing the sell price is easy to understand and seemed to us like a fair solution - it's helpful to hear your feedback on how it felt, thanks for that.

Thanks for the explanation. I am glad that the sell price was increased as the Iso that I got went to better use. I am more glad that we are getting better communication from the Demiurge team. Thanks again.

Unknown

Although I agree with most in the OP, I have to say it is easier to find new players to agree with it than veterans who have spent time and money to level the nerfed characters. For a new player who starts now, sure, the changes are probably good.

Most were angry with the patch because it did 3 things.
1. The timing of the release was unfortunate at best. No serious developer/publisher releases a patch like this in the middle of a major event and several tournaments. No one. Would Blizzard release a major StarCraft patch in the middle of a world tournament? I really doubt they would do that unless there was an exploit of sorts. Also the explanation that there wasn't a better time since they always have something running in the game is a joke. A bad one. They could release the patch today in the morning when the event ended. The only thing that is running now is the Wolverine tournament and everyone knows that most play mostly in the last day so the impact the patch would have in the progress of the players would be minimal.

2. They didn't announce the price changes for the boosts even after the release. And only that, but the price went from ISO to HP. I was one of them who bought a set of boosts because I pressed the button without checking the price (since there was no announcement). I agree we should be more careful, but in the middle of a tournament where timing is important, because this was the way they designed it, you expect the players to make purchases without checking, especially since you didn't inform them.

3. The lack of communication in general. This came 1-2 weeks after they said they decided to make known to the public the changes some time before they happen. If you don't know the term Funbalance, prepare for some fun times in the future. That didn't go down that well at all. At all. Stealth changes that were "accidentally" were left out of the official statement, price changes the players weren't informed about even after they went public and the timing of the release of the patch showed that the dev/publisher are not mature enough for a game as big as this. That, or there is an agenda behind all the "failures" to communicate with the player base.


As for the comment you made about the devs not being able of tracking how much paid money and iso you spent on a character, if this is true then the dev has even less experience with game design than I assumed. All games should be able to keep track of that in order to prevent hacking attempts and to be able to know how your game performs, what is the player behavior, etc. I think a statement like that doesn't work in favor of the developer, but instead, ( if it is true, which I doubt) shows their lack of experience.

Unknown

Demiurge_Will wrote:

If you earn a bunch of currency through play, buy a bunch of currency, and spend a bunch of currency in a bunch of different places, there's no clear way to determine that a particular batch of Iso-8/Hero Points was bought for a particular purpose. It has less to do with technical issues (though anything that would have to do with scraping the game's logs and doing something on the server in response would require engineering effort that we'd rather use to make the game better) and more to do with the nature of a currency. Increasing the sell price is easy to understand and seemed to us like a fair solution - it's helpful to hear your feedback on how it felt, thanks for that.

IMO the formula is pretty simple. What you can realistically earn in game plays in a different category than what is not. What makes ISO payment a thing affordable by more grinding. And HP you have to buy beyond really small amounts.

That's the delicate matter around shield prices, in the first test period it was at good price, people figures out that you invest some of what you gain the the same tournament and walk away with 50-ish gain and covers. Cool. In the good old days you could elevate over pirhanas, so they were not a necessity but a good safety measure.

With double it's not the case anymore, especially with lowering the HP in progression. You may come out even by selling off the covers, but then what is the point really? The tournament experience is lightyears from being fun now, it's done for the prize.

And making consumables cost HP is clearly P2W -- paying palette boosts from earnings is strictly impossible currently. That makes it a pure p2w feature.

Ant it could be removed trivially by either scrapping this boost, or just remove it from sale. The latter is trivial, remove the buy and the 10-maximum of storage -- and it can be found as drops and rewards available for everyone the same way. And one can allocate it where needed knowing the usual gain rate.

Unknown

Narkon wrote:

Although I agree with most in the OP, I have to say it is easier to find new players to agree with it than veterans who have spent time and money to level the nerfed characters. For a new player who starts now, sure, the changes are probably good.

Most were angry with the patch because it did3 things. ...

Another excellent summary.

Unknown

Demiurge_Will wrote:

If you earn a bunch of currency through play, buy a bunch of currency, and spend a bunch of currency in a bunch of different places, there's no clear way to determine that a particular batch of Iso-8/Hero Points was bought for a particular purpose. It has less to do with technical issues (though anything that would have to do with scraping the game's logs and doing something on the server in response would require engineering effort that we'd rather use to make the game better) and more to do with the nature of a currency. Increasing the sell price is easy to understand and seemed to us like a fair solution - it's helpful to hear your feedback on how it felt, thanks for that.

Actually, where the ISO or HP came from is irrelevant if the player has purchased ISO or HP in the game. Why? Because the ISO AND HP he purchased went in a feature in the game. An example

Let's assume someone buys 2900 HP (€17) and opens 10 roster slots (in the 250-350HP range) because he needs them. With the HP he gains in game he buys covers for a ** character because he doesn't need more slots. If you make a change that makes a hero not desirable any more, you essentially cancel the progress he made in the game. Compare his situation with another player's who never paid anything and simply used his in-game HP to open the slots. His hero will not have all abilities leveled, but this hardly matters if he no longer likes the hero. He will just sell him and make some HP for his trouble.

The thing is that when there is a change that devalues a player's progress, and that player has spent real money, the game should assume that the progress that was lost was achieved with the money that was spent (up to a certain value after the progress is quantified). In almost all these cases the creator of the product will lose from this process, but ultimately it was his fault for creating and distributing something that was either not properly tested or released prematurely. Even more so when there is no indication that the product is in a testing phase when the consumer purchases it.

Unknown

Narkon wrote:

Demiurge_Will wrote:

If you earn a bunch of currency through play, buy a bunch of currency, and spend a bunch of currency in a bunch of different places, there's no clear way to determine that a particular batch of Iso-8/Hero Points was bought for a particular purpose. It has less to do with technical issues (though anything that would have to do with scraping the game's logs and doing something on the server in response would require engineering effort that we'd rather use to make the game better) and more to do with the nature of a currency. Increasing the sell price is easy to understand and seemed to us like a fair solution - it's helpful to hear your feedback on how it felt, thanks for that.

Actually, where the ISO or HP came from is irrelevant if the player has purchased ISO or HP in the game. Why? Because the ISO AND HP he purchased went in a feature in the game. An example

Let's assume someone buys 2900 HP (€17) and opens 10 roster slots (in the 250-350HP range) because he needs them. With the HP he gains in game he buys covers for a ** character because he doesn't need more slots. If you make a change that makes a hero not desirable any more, you essentially cancel the progress he made in the game. Compare his situation with another player's who never paid anything and simply used his in-game HP to open the slots. His hero will not have all abilities leveled, but this hardly matters if he no longer likes the hero. He will just sell him and make some HP for his trouble.

The thing is that when there is a change that devalues a player's progress, and that player has spent real money, the game should assume that the progress that was lost was achieved with the money that was spent (up to a certain value after the progress is quantified). In almost all these cases the creator of the product will lose from this process, but ultimately it was his fault for creating and distributing something that was either not properly tested or released prematurely. Even more so when there is no indication that the product is in a testing phase when the consumer purchases it.

I'd normally agree with you, but there are two big things that are relevant here:

A. The game is still in beta, this is something anyone who plays the game should be very aware of, as it's mentioned in several places BESIDES FAQs.
B. Your last paragraph sort of ignores the fact that any online game naturally is going to change over time. Any time a change is made, someone, SOMEWHERE, is going to have their progress "Devalued". In addition, short of releasing the game to a different population, no truly sufficient testing phase can even occur in a way that handles all problems.

Unknown

Telicis wrote:

A. The game is still in beta, this is something anyone who plays the game should be very aware of, as it's mentioned in several places BESIDES FAQs.

Except the game now says "Launch Edition" instead of "Preview Edition", giving the impression that the game is out of beta. If this game really still is in beta, they should have left it at "Preview Edition".

Telicis wrote:

B. Your last paragraph sort of ignores the fact that any online game naturally is going to change over time. Any time a change is made, someone, SOMEWHERE, is going to have their progress "Devalued". In addition, short of releasing the game to a different population, no truly sufficient testing phase can even occur in a way that handles all problems.

The difference between this and other online games is that you have to put resources into your characters and "buy" them multiple times.

Unlike League of Legends where buying a champion is a one-time affair, or SC2 where everything is self contained, in this game, you need 10 to 13 covers for each character, and a massive amount of iso to level them up.

The increased sell back price when they got nerfed was nice, but it still isn't enough for people who really only had these 2 characters. On top of that they immediately followed it up with 3 events needing those characters.

Unknown

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2926&start=120

L45TN7 wrote:

whoever said i shouldnt expect to win every pve battle is a tinykitty idiot.

trying to beat the first dakan mission where he shows up with 2 assassins they're all level 201 - way up from the first missions 89.

seriously, mandatory daredevil at level 77 and even with my spidey 141 and wolverine at 85 i cant avoid green being matched especially when both assassins create green countdown tiles. i miss my tinykitty magneto***

Unknown

The three current events really makes me question if the devs know what they're doing at all.

Unknown

Why did my last post get deleted? Are the mods on these boards power trippers? I didn't even say anything bad.

I'll reiterate the last point in my previous post though. This solution is like solving the minimum wage debate by giving everyone minimum wage. The people who work the hardest should have the best characters, making the best characters suck just makes it so there isn't anything to work towards. Maybe Thor was a bit OP but that is why so many of us spent months getting covers and ISO to max him out. The better strategy would be to make some of the **** heroes more powerful rather than throwing my hard work in the toilet.

Unknown

wirius wrote:

Its very simple guys:

"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."

That's what this patch was. Now if you are one of the few who exclusively used thor and wolverine, or popped boosts like a drug, you're going to be upset. You had power! So much power! And now you don't. So you rage. Understandable, most people can't deal with a loss of power, even if its for the good of all.

But I'm going to try to explain how its beneficial anyway. Because I believe most people are pretty good, and can be reasoned with after the initial rage subsides.

1. Thor and Wolverine, are not destroyed, they are now at the power they were supposed to be.

** star characters shouldn't have been that much better than *** star characters, otherwise, why continue to climb? I think this has been addressed enough by the devs. Go check out their post if you need more justification.

2. You're not supposed to always win every PvE fight.

This one boggles me a little. Guys, if you think you should be winning every PvE fight, you're a little self entitled. The devs put fights out there that should be beyond certain players, and that's o.k. Sure, you're not going to earn as much as the team with the *** star roster, and you shouldn't. But you still can earn iso, covers, and keep building that team to one day compete.

"But the rich get richer!" you say. So what are they supposed to do? If you have a top roster you're...supposed to lose more? Even post nerf, my 85 Thor, with a 40 patch and OBW got in the top 20 in the daredevil tournament. Did I expect to hit top ten? Hell no. Did I expect to even hit top 50? Not really. There were plenty of PvE fights I couldn't do either. I don't feel entitled too if I don't have the characters.

3. You spent money on your character, yet you don't think about the benefit you got over those who didn't.

Look, you spent money on Thor or Wolv. Got it, you're pissed because instead of being overpowered, they're just good ** stars. What about all of those things you won when you had overpowered characters? Some of you had months of overpowered advantage, which was VERY worth the money compared to where you would be now if you didn't spend it. What about all the people who didn't have a chance to compete with you? I know you want to win, but was it a FAIR win? Are you upset and claiming its unfair that fairness in balancing has ruined your reign of power? Now you know what its like to be the super rich and be told taxes will increase, lol.

4. The devs had no way of tracking how much paid money and iso you spent on a character.

How do you expect a full refund? Did you honestly not expect balancing to occur as the game continued down the road? You knew what you were doing when you paid to get blatently overpowered characters, and you reaped their rewards. The devs don't owe you a single cent back.

After all, if the devs would refund a character completely after nerfs, wouldn't that only encourage more people to flood overpowered characters, knowing there would be no disadvantage to do so? Do we really want that?

5. Boosts should have been a real cost to gain advantage beyond what you were supposed to be at. Now they are.

Pretty self explanatory. Its a boost, not a drug or a needed form of gameplay. It was being abused. Now you have to think if you want to burn beyond your power level. Again, a good thing for the game.

Conclusion:

You may not agree with everything I've said, and that's fine. But I want you to take one thing from it: the developers are making these changes for the health of the game as a whole. Try to step outside of yourself, how it impacts you only, and start thinking about tons of other people who wish to play competitively too, and the long term health of a game that encourages variety, and not a few overpowered champs and ISO drug use.

1. Thor is a joke. Wolvie is not as bad off

2. Never did

3. You have the same right to spend money as the rest of us. Not my fault if you don't or can't exercise that.

4. Of course they do you made a financial transaction thinking otherwise is absurd they also know what it takes to level a character so it isn't rocket science to figure out a fair exchange price

5. That is your opinion as are the rest.

Bottom line is they screwed over paying customers for whiners and are about to do it again. People are feeling cheated because they spent money on something and it was pulled out from under them. You don't do that without offering fair recompense. What they offered as an exchange was a figurative stick in the eye with a ridiculously low resale price.

Unknown

Derethus wrote:

Telicis wrote:

A. The game is still in beta, this is something anyone who plays the game should be very aware of, as it's mentioned in several places BESIDES FAQs.

Except the game now says "Launch Edition" instead of "Preview Edition", giving the impression that the game is out of beta. If this game really still is in beta, they should have left it at "Preview Edition".

Really? That's a new change, and doesn't really make much sense considering we don't have past the Prologue. Hmm.

Derethus wrote:

Telicis wrote:

B. Your last paragraph sort of ignores the fact that any online game naturally is going to change over time. Any time a change is made, someone, SOMEWHERE, is going to have their progress "Devalued". In addition, short of releasing the game to a different population, no truly sufficient testing phase can even occur in a way that handles all problems.

The difference between this and other online games is that you have to put resources into your characters and "buy" them multiple times.

Unlike League of Legends where buying a champion is a one-time affair, or SC2 where everything is self contained, in this game, you need 10 to 13 covers for each character, and a massive amount of iso to level them up.

The increased sell back price when they got nerfed was nice, but it still isn't enough for people who really only had these 2 characters. On top of that they immediately followed it up with 3 events needing those characters.

Comparing a game like this to LoL (Especially considering that game started out 100% free) doesn't really make sense though - different genres, different expectations, different ways of working.

I'd compare this more to Mobage games or the like, as it's in the same general form (F2P/Premium) and concepts (statistical/strategy rather than actually controlling a character). Honestly, I don't think even the increased sellback was necessary - changes happen, especially if something is clearly too popular/overpowered. I recall seeing a post that basically summed up the argument as "of course I was using those characters, they were stronger than everyone else!"... Which sort of made me tilt my head. I mean... If, in a roster of all the characters in a game, there are one or two that are making 50%+ of the population of PvP, what's worse? A game that leaves it that way, or that fixes the issue?

As for the events featuring them: I get the logic currently going on. They rebalanced characters, and now are featuring them in an attempt to get them replaytested. I am sure if Thor and Wolverine proved to be worse than all *s, or on the level of Bagman, they'd also re-adjust them to be stronger. That's common sense. (Sidenote: This is an entirely seperate issue to the fact they are restricting rosters/still not scaling things properly. WHOLE other issue)

As for the people who only had Thor and Wolverine... I think if at any point in time a strategy relies on only one or two out of a multitude of options, it's a sign that A. something is broken and needs to be fixed or B. the person making those choices should suffer in comparison to those who go for a more well-rounded/adaptable strategy. That's the cornerstone of all strategy games, in any form, ever (because ultimately perfectly level balance is impossible in a game). It's part of the consequence of that choice.

Any choice you make as a player is a consequence. The fact you spent money doesn't change that. Everyone seems to understand this on a base "you choose with match to make during a battle" level, so I don't get why they can't extend it. What you choose to spend that currency on that you purchased isn't up to anyone else.

N.B. Anytime I say "you" I am speaking generally, no to you specifically.

Unknown

Does it count in the "done well category" when you nerf characters and push people to sell them off (due to deliberately providing no respec), then immediately feature them in all kinds of events?

Also I hear the so loved mob leveling to 230 is here again when we thought it got finally shelved for good.

Unknown

wirius wrote:

Its very simple guys:

"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."

Do you have a percentage here? And when you say "needs" what is it you are talking about? This thread generalizes the complaints of all the people to Thorverine.

Sad to say, they are not the main reason a lot of people are very upset. This thread is about as narrow minded as I can think of.

The Devs have done well. My questions are, what have they done well?

1. What are the devs doing about the people who are obviously cheating?
This game is all about rewards based on ranking. Anything significant you get is all about how you placed well in a tournament. Now, I would day that I have a decent collection of chars but cannot be considered top notch. How do you think I feel when I see that the people in my leaderboard seems like they "dont deserve" to be there? What have the devs done well about this?

2. What are the devs doing about PVP?
If you have not experience MMR hell. Please just shut up. Massive cheating without any action. What have the devs done well about this?

3. What have the devs doing about PVE?
Massive cheating without any action. If say you finished 3rd while aiming for 1st or 2nd and you know damn well that the two players were cheating, what can you do? Take the lesser rewards and cry for having spend so much time only to get beat by undeserving folks. Doing releases mid tournament without really thinking about the consequences. The +AP to All nerf is one example and there are plenty more. *sigh*

What have the devs done well about this?

I wish this game was never brought into PC.

Unknown

Abstrakt Fists wrote:

Why did my last post get deleted? Are the mods on these boards power trippers? I didn't even say anything bad.

I'll reiterate the last point in my previous post though. This solution is like solving the minimum wage debate by giving everyone minimum wage. The people who work the hardest should have the best characters, making the best characters suck just makes it so there isn't anything to work towards. Maybe Thor was a bit OP but that is why so many of us spent months getting covers and ISO to max him out. The better strategy would be to make some of the **** heroes more powerful rather than throwing my hard work in the toilet.

I've had posts disappear too, I think there's a limit on how many times you can post in a short amount of time... Or just things poofing. Either way I wouldn't chalk it up to board mods - something tells me there aren't any that have the time to even read every post, much less search for specific ones to delete.

While I like your analogy of minimum wage, I have to point out the similar flaw in your logic with what the better strategy would be:

Buffing other characters (Rather than reducing/rebalancing the older ones) is basically perpetuating the entire concept of inflation. Eventually they're just going to have to buff everyone, make every new character stronger than the previous, and go from there.

Oddly enough, this exact model is used in a lot of games (and those are some of the more successful ones)... But it's certainly a lot less balanced - the vast majority of the income, then, comes from the sheer amount of time/money spent on whatever new, overpowered character gets released. Not really a better option.

Unknown

And now they have two tournaments for Thorverine, while prior to this, they offered a relief to people because they have readjusted them.

*clap* *clap* *clap* Well done Devs!

Unknown

Telicis wrote:

As for the events featuring them: I get the logic currently going on. They rebalanced characters, and now are featuring them in an attempt to get them replaytested. I am sure if Thor and Wolverine proved to be worse than all *s, or on the level of Bagman, they'd also re-adjust them to be stronger. That's common sense. (Sidenote: This is an entirely seperate issue to the fact they are restricting rosters/still not scaling things properly. WHOLE other issue)

The problem is you're trying to playtest them while they are boosted. If they really wanted to playtest them, they could easily have a No Holds Barred tournament. A lot of people held onto their Thors and Wolverines. You can tell by looking at the rosters in Avengers Elite and The Best There Is. Having a tournament where everyone is the same strength would have been a far greater playtest environment

Telicis wrote:

As for the people who only had Thor and Wolverine... I think if at any point in time a strategy relies on only one or two out of a multitude of options, it's a sign that A. something is broken and needs to be fixed or B. the person making those choices should suffer in comparison to those who go for a more well-rounded/adaptable strategy. That's the cornerstone of all strategy games, in any form, ever (because ultimately perfectly level balance is impossible in a game). It's part of the consequence of that choice.

Any choice you make as a player is a consequence. The fact you spent money doesn't change that. Everyone seems to understand this on a base "you choose with match to make during a battle" level, so I don't get why they can't extend it. What you choose to spend that currency on that you purchased isn't up to anyone else.

N.B. Anytime I say "you" I am speaking generally, no to you specifically.

I would be far more accepting of this if it didn't take so much time/iso/hp to get 13 covers and level a character to max. Starting out, if you really want to compete, you pick 3 characters and focus on them. Thor and Wolverine are both offered in the prologue and relatively strong.

The reason I was comparing to League of Legends is that, in that game, when something gets nerfed, it doesn't take much time to get back to a competitive level.

In this game, when something gets nerfed, it could take some player a long time to get back to the same level. The entire time they spend doing that, they're winning less fights, progressing less in the story, etc. Nerfs need to happen, sure, but you also need to keep players progressing and playing, otherwise they get discouraged and leave.

Unknown

Derethus wrote:

The problem is you're trying to playtest them while they are boosted. If they really wanted to playtest them, they could easily have a No Holds Barred tournament. A lot of people held onto their Thors and Wolverines. You can tell by looking at the rosters in Avengers Elite and The Best There Is. Having a tournament where everyone is the same strength would have been a far greater playtest environment

I agree with that, though I see the logic in having them here while boosted: It showcases them. But as you've stated, it makes more sense to make them required rather than boosted.

Derethus wrote:

I would be far more accepting of this if it didn't take so much time/iso/hp to get 13 covers and level a character to max. Starting out, if you really want to compete, you pick 3 characters and focus on them. Thor and Wolverine are both offered in the prologue and relatively strong.

The reason I was comparing to League of Legends is that, in that game, when something gets nerfed, it doesn't take much time to get back to a competitive level.

In this game, when something gets nerfed, it could take some player a long time to get back to the same level. The entire time they spend doing that, they're winning less fights, progressing less in the story, etc. Nerfs need to happen, sure, but you also need to keep players progressing and playing, otherwise they get discouraged and leave.

Again, League of Legends has a hugely unfair advantage there: That game was originally never created for profit, has been around for almost five years, and thus has a lot more experience with playerbases/how to balance things/etc.

As for the time/iso/hp required, I don't argue with that at all it's a large investment. However, I would argue competing doesn't necessitate that: Proper scaling would solve most of the PvE issues, and PvP's messed up matchmaking are the bigger obstacles there.

Thor and Wolverine are both still functional characters who have a place in a roster. And, honestly, every piece of advice I've read (and benefitted from) since playing this game goes directly against only focusing on three characters. Especially when so much of the game is based on luck from where tiles fall (ones you can't see, I mean).