May Community Q&A open for questions!

mohio

Moon Roach wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

Question: Can I give forum warnings to users posting completely off-topic responses (as in not responses to other user's questions) in official threads?

My cat just did something really cute.

Pics or it didn't happen.

GothicKratos

mohio wrote:

Moon Roach wrote:

GothicKratos wrote:

Question: Can I give forum warnings to users posting completely off-topic responses (as in not responses to other user's questions) in official threads?

My cat just did something really cute.

Pics or it didn't happen.

These are both off-topic responses to an on-topic question. Banned.

SnowcaTT

It's been asked a few ways about statistics of play and are characters being used as planned, here is another way to ask it.

Question: What were the ten characters most and least played with a month ago, and what are they today?

Unknown

I was reminded over PM that each question needs a separate post to qualify, so I'm gonna spam a couple posts here since my previous question was actually a bunch of em. First one:

Question: Does health pack use affect match difficulty (it seems to)?

Specifically it seems to make the game easier when you use them, and tougher if you've managed to go a while without using what it considers enough (to the tune that the A.I. seems to start outright cheating beyond what should be randomly possible).

Can you confirm whether / why this happens and what the rationale is for forcing players to use health packs?

Unknown

Question: I'd like confirmation of whether or not there are event triggers within matches that decide whether or not to provide hostile cascades to the A.I., which go beyond simply being random, and more-so targeted (i.e. cascades that target your special tiles and / or provide them with an overflow of AP in their strong colors).

I've noticed this especially of late, and would like a) confirmation of whether or not they exist, b) what conditions prompt them, and c) what the rationale is for allowing the A.I. to effectively cheat, if not to force a player into using health packs after playing what the game considers too well?

Inarius

Question: Do you plan on bringing alliance cover trading to the table?

Question: Do you plan on introducing a master cover? As in it will let you choose the cover power of the char you want?

Question: Will you make more alliance based events like the Ultron one?

Unknown

Question: What effect does making purchases, either with earned or bought HP have on match difficulty, bracketing, and token odds (and is there a difference between the two currencies in this regard)?

Unknown

Question: Does time played or time logged in have any bearing on bracketing or token draw odds, and if so, what effect specifically?

Unknown

Question: Does placement in PvE events have any bearing on PvP bracketing or token draws, and if so, what?

Unknown

Question: Does being in an alliance have any impact on PvE / PvP bracketing or token draws, and if so, what?

Unknown

Question: Do seasons rankings affect PvP bracketing or MMR at all, and if so how and how much? Is the effect cumulative or only for the next season?

Unknown

Question: Are there any plans to fix PvP so players aren't punished for leveling up their heroes and establishing a stronger roster?

After the ISO cost reduction, I leveled more heroes to 166 or nearby, and have since found PvP to be all but unplayable due to death brackets, the health buff nerf, and steeper MMR that makes it harder to climb.

Can you comment on your plans in this regard, for how you plan to make PvP fun again for players with decent rosters, who would like to play the game at less than a borderline part-time or full-time job?

fmftint

Question: Can we go back to the old, traditional PVP format?

I've been playing PVP full time for 3 seasons now and while my roster has improved, the PVP experience has gotten worse with each season

Unknown

@theHappyDance

I understand your curiosity but asking all of those leading questions is really not productive. Because if the devs give you the conspiracy answer you want it will reflect poorly on the game, so there is 0% chance they will not offer a politically correct answer (eg. even if token odds are somehow connected to play time, they will never officially admit it).

MarvelDestiny

JCTthe3rd81 wrote:

fmftint wrote:

JCTthe3rd81 wrote:

Why were the TUs changed so that facing lvl 300 Jugg and Venom only gives us a lvl 40 TU, and any chance it will be changed back? If not an equal level of the opponent that was defeated, then maybe 75% (or even 50%) ? Like if I beat a lvl 300 Juggs, I get a lvl 225 (or even 150) TU ?

officially they said players were farming them, driving up community scaling, removing over levels TUs would lead to slower community scaling.

http://d3go.com/forums/viewtopic.php?st ... 20#p321177

There were some questions earlier in the thread about why we're doing this.

In a few cases, those Giant-Size Super-villain Team-Ups were causing balance issues (including allowing people to get through fights much more easily than you'd expect from their team, and encouraging people to farm repeatable missions for high-level Team-Ups, both of which create more of those 300+ enemies for more players).

We knew we needed to take them out (for the health of Story events and the balance of the game more generally), but when we can (and we can't always), we like to replace something we're removing with a positive addition. In this case we were planning systems that made Team-Ups significantly stronger for most players, so we decided to make those changes at the same time.

Now you're getting much better Team-Ups from your alliance mates, both by scaling their level up to your team and by taking away the penalty for sending your best characters.

Thank you for the explanation. I must have missed it. But it brings up another question....

If players farming 300+ nodes for TU made it more difficult for others, then doesn't that suggest that it was not so much the 300+ TU that was broken, but that community scaling was the real problem? And why is there even community scaling?

(Question bolded by me.)

This is an excellent question, thanks JTC. I would like to point out that community scaling probably ties directly into PVE ranking. If removing community scaling requires a huge overhaul of the ranking system in PVE (up to removing it entirely), I think I'd be ok with it. And I don't think I am alone.

I'd rather PVE be fun and based on roster strength alone than to constantly face outrageously over-leveled nodes. If this means the award system is exclusively progression-based, I'd be happy with that. It would suck to lose those awards, but enjoying PVE again? Priceless.

After all, it is PVE, not PVC.

dider152

It seems to me that you don't really answer the questions that are more pertinent to gameplay, and when you do address concerns, it's usually in a joking manner or you misdirect to another issue. Can you please consider increasing the time limit on your videos so you can answer more questions? There are a lot of pertinent questions asked in this thread, and I would like them answered.

MarvelDestiny

When Alliance mates ask for TU's most of us ask what he/she needs and send characters with those skills (board shaker, nuke, healer, ect). Unfortunately, we don't have control of what ability is sent.

Is it possible to give us this control and will you?

_RiO_

Question: What are your plans to balance the unfair advantage in PvE for mobile players vs players playing through the Steam version of the game from a fixed home system?

As a given, we have the 7 day PvE event time; the 24hr limit on PvE subs; the 8hr refresh period on PvE nodes; the 2.5hr refresh period on health-packs; and the natural regeneration period(s) of the characters.

Mobile players can, through on-the-go / pick-up-and-play matches, make good use of 3 (almost) full point-refreshes of nodes within a 24hr sub-event, with room to spare for their health-packs to have regenerated and their characters to have naturally recovered to (near) full health inbetween each sweep across the nodes.

Steam players play mostly according to a single large burst of play in the evenings. This can be backed by an additional short period in the morning before leaving for work/school/etc. but the amortized modus operandi here should be assumed to be just that single evening burst of play: you cannot expect the average mentally sane person to get up out of bed one to two hours early for every day of the week while a 7 day event is running, just to place well. Maybe one or two days every other event, but certainly not the full week.

Given just the single burst of play in the evenings, that means Steam players get one full refresh per PvE sub. For more points, they have to replay nodes at diminished returns, opening themselves up to less point rewards at equal risk to mobile players. In doing so, they also do not get the benefit of regenerating their health-packs or letting character health regenerate naturally in-between runs, which confers a further handicap in how much points a Steam player can gather before being shut down due to roster knock-out.

simonsez

All of the recent changes (nerfs, boost limits, health buffs, matchmaking) have significantly increased the length of time required for each match. Are there any plans to reduce the time commitment the game now requires? EG reduce the stack size in PvE, reduce scaling, revamp PvP progression reward levels. further changes to matchmaking, etc.

SnowcaTT

It's been brought up before, here is another good place. Lots of times characters are buffed or nerfed and suddenly the build that players had is no longer the build they want. There are often cries of "free respec!" - which I can understand why not, not every player may have previously had all the covers.

Both of these issues would be solved if we could keep 15 covers, even if we had to select only 13 active.

Question: Are there plans to let characters keep fifteen covers (even if only 13 are active)?