Seriously a Thor tourney?

Unknown

Telicis wrote:

justaplayer wrote:

Sorry but you are making excuses for them. If you make a mistake you own it and fix it especially in the tech world. Nobody is expecting them to be perfect just communicate and fix it when they screw up and assure us (the customer) they will try and do better. It really isn't hard.

I'm by no means making excuses or saying that (ESPECIALLY in the tech world) you shouldn't accept responsibility for a screwup.

I'm just trying to point out that, unless I've missed something, IceIX and the rest have 0 control over the Devs, design of the game, or what happens in regards to scheduling/events/etc. If D3 is like any other company, they are the people who make announcements, who deal with the community, and try to translate feedback back to the designers and such.

It is not only hard, but factually IMPOSSIBLE for someone, in that position to apologize for a mistake they did not make (as they did not cause it). That's the point I'm trying to make.

But they do have control over design of the game. Will is the lead designer...

Comment not directed towards the rest of your post. I'm unbiased in the apology matter. I'm a results guy.

Unknown

Psykopathic wrote:

But they do have control over design of the game. Will is the lead designer...

Comment not directed towards the rest of your post. I'm unbiased in the apology matter. I'm a results guy.

Wow I need to pay attention to signatures more.

Ok, His response in my thread makes Demiurge seem really incompetent now.

Unknown

Derethus wrote:

My views might be a little more flexible than I present them, but I don't really want to detail out every nuance.

Fair enough - the sentence you had about how you would immediately uninstall if they apologized and screwed up again was all I took issue with, beyond what you address later.

Derethus wrote:

With the exception of League of Legends, most companies won't let their developers speak and have a very specific public representative, I understand this. But I'd rather have no response than a response that makes them look incompetent.

As previously mentioned, LoL is not only a very well-experienced case, but also a glowing case of good communicaton as a whole. I wish we could hold more games to that standard - but doing so would put 90% of all MMOs out of business, among other things.

Derethus wrote:

I also don't think they have to get everything perfect. But if they say they'll do better at nerf timing next time, and then have a Spiderman tournament with a nerf on the middle hours of the tournament, then they're obviously going to lie to you.

My issue with Demiurge right now is that they say they listen to feedback on the forums, but the Thor/Wolvie nerfs make it obvious that they didn't listen to the feedback from the Rags nerf, where he was nerfed in the middle of LR.

I want something other than "See there's a wolvie tourney and a thor tourney! This justifies our decision to patch in the middle of Avengers Elite!"

I also want more communication, and actual patch notes that don't have to be added to when players find a myriad of things that weren't on the patch notes.

I've yet to ever find a post that has say they'll "do better at nerf timing next time". I'm not doubting you, I just can't personally hold someone accountable for something I've looked for and haven't yet found. Same goes for "See there's a wolvie tourney and a thor tourney! This justifies our decision to patch in the middle of Avengers Elite!" I think you are unfairly putting words in their mouth there... If anyone actually said anything close to that, I'd bet $10 it would be copy and pasted every time any of them said anything for the next 2-3 months.

More communication and actual patch notes (that don't need 50 addendums) is a great thing and something we all want! I also think it's fair to give a game at least a year before it reaches that point. I'd be hard pressed to name more than a handful of multiplayer games that acheived that less than 6 months after public reveal, certainly not one by a small company such as D3.

Extrapolation is the important aspect here: Apologizing for a bad timing decision doesn't mean Demiurge, IceIX, or anyone else can fix it - it's not their call.

On the other hand, I think that there's so many people walking around saying both

A. You shouldn't have nerfed X!
and
B. You shouldn't have nerfed X at this time!

That it's hard to separate the two and figure out which you should listen to more. Both can be valid complaints depending on the situation, and assessing which is hard.

Unknown

Telicis wrote:

justaplayer wrote:

Sorry but you are making excuses for them. If you make a mistake you own it and fix it especially in the tech world. Nobody is expecting them to be perfect just communicate and fix it when they screw up and assure us (the customer) they will try and do better. It really isn't hard.

I'm by no means making excuses or saying that (ESPECIALLY in the tech world) you shouldn't accept responsibility for a screwup.

I'm just trying to point out that, unless I've missed something, IceIX and the rest have 0 control over the Devs, design of the game, or what happens in regards to scheduling/events/etc. If D3 is like any other company, they are the people who make announcements, who deal with the community, and try to translate feedback back to the designers and such.

It is not only hard, but factually IMPOSSIBLE for someone, in that position to apologize for a mistake they did not make (as they did not cause it). That's the point I'm trying to make.

How do any of us know what his duties are he only one of two communicating now so that is who we are talking to. I don't think anyone was holding him personally responsible that I saw and people were mostly posting towards the devs in general. This was a company issue as far as I am concerned and should be addressed as such. All in all you are missing the point. When you anger your customers you find out why and try and make it better. Again not hard.

Unknown

Telicis wrote:

Derethus wrote:

My views might be a little more flexible than I present them, but I don't really want to detail out every nuance.

Fair enough - the sentence you had about how you would immediately uninstall if they apologized and screwed up again was all I took issue with, beyond what you address later.

Derethus wrote:

With the exception of League of Legends, most companies won't let their developers speak and have a very specific public representative, I understand this. But I'd rather have no response than a response that makes them look incompetent.

As previously mentioned, LoL is not only a very well-experienced case, but also a glowing case of good communicaton as a whole. I wish we could hold more games to that standard - but doing so would put 90% of all MMOs out of business, among other things.

Derethus wrote:

I also don't think they have to get everything perfect. But if they say they'll do better at nerf timing next time, and then have a Spiderman tournament with a nerf on the middle hours of the tournament, then they're obviously going to lie to you.

My issue with Demiurge right now is that they say they listen to feedback on the forums, but the Thor/Wolvie nerfs make it obvious that they didn't listen to the feedback from the Rags nerf, where he was nerfed in the middle of LR.

I want something other than "See there's a wolvie tourney and a thor tourney! This justifies our decision to patch in the middle of Avengers Elite!"

I also want more communication, and actual patch notes that don't have to be added to when players find a myriad of things that weren't on the patch notes.

I've yet to ever find a post that has say they'll "do better at nerf timing next time". I'm not doubting you, I just can't personally hold someone accountable for something I've looked for and haven't yet found. Same goes for "See there's a wolvie tourney and a thor tourney! This justifies our decision to patch in the middle of Avengers Elite!" I think you are unfairly putting words in their mouth there... If anyone actually said anything close to that, I'd bet $10 it would be copy and pasted every time any of them said anything for the next 2-3 months.

More communication and actual patch notes (that don't need 50 addendums) is a great thing and something we all want! I also think it's fair to give a game at least a year before it reaches that point. I'd be hard pressed to name more than a handful of multiplayer games that acheived that less than 6 months after public reveal, certainly not one by a small company such as D3.

Extrapolation is the important aspect here: Apologizing for a bad timing decision doesn't mean Demiurge, IceIX, or anyone else can fix it - it's not their call.

On the other hand, I think that there's so many people walking around saying both

A. You shouldn't have nerfed X!
and
B. You shouldn't have nerfed X at this time!

That it's hard to separate the two and figure out which you should listen to more. Both can be valid complaints depending on the situation, and assessing which is hard.

You are making more excuses than they are

Unknown

Telicis wrote:

Same goes for "See there's a wolvie tourney and a thor tourney! This justifies our decision to patch in the middle of Avengers Elite!" I think you are unfairly putting words in their mouth there... If anyone actually said anything close to that, I'd bet $10 it would be copy and pasted every time any of them said anything for the next 2-3 months..

It's not an exact quote, but:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2942#p45695

Am I putting some words in their mouth? Maybe. But in response to "You put the nerf at a bad time" I was responded with "There's a wolvie and a thor tourney now! What's a better time?"

IceIX

Derethus wrote:

Am I putting some words in their mouth? Maybe. But in response to "You put the nerf at a bad time" I was responded with "There's a wolvie and a thor tourney now! What's a better time?"

I'll say this about the recent character nerfs and associated planned Tournies. We put a few tacks up on the board of "What to avoid in the future if at all possible".

Unknown

IceIX wrote:

Derethus wrote:

Am I putting some words in their mouth? Maybe. But in response to "You put the nerf at a bad time" I was responded with "There's a wolvie and a thor tourney now! What's a better time?"

I'll say this about the recent character nerfs and associated planned Tournies. We put a few tacks up on the board of "What to avoid in the future if at all possible".

Thank you. That's all I wanted to hear.

Unknown

IceIX wrote:

Derethus wrote:

Am I putting some words in their mouth? Maybe. But in response to "You put the nerf at a bad time" I was responded with "There's a wolvie and a thor tourney now! What's a better time?"

I'll say this about the recent character nerfs and associated planned Tournies. We put a few tacks up on the board of "What to avoid in the future if at all possible".

Lmao. I think that proves what's his faces point about what they are and are not allowed to say.

Vague answer but I believe it does suffice the question being asked?

Unknown

Derethus wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

But they do have control over design of the game. Will is the lead designer...

Comment not directed towards the rest of your post. I'm unbiased in the apology matter. I'm a results guy.

Wow I need to pay attention to signatures more.

Ok, His response in my thread makes Demiurge seem really incompetent now.

I had not noticed this either.

Which begs the question; Why in the world is the Lead Designer (assuming he works with the Developers - I am willing to concede that in some cases, Designers and Developers are entirely separate groups when it comes to companies/games) having to field questions?

I'm starting to wonder if the issue here is severe lack of manpower rather than incompetence...

justaplayer wrote:

How do any of us know what his duties are he only one of two communicating now so that is who we are talking to. I don't think anyone was holding him personally responsible that I saw and people were mostly posting towards the devs in general. This was a company issue as far as I am concerned and should be addressed as such. All in all you are missing the point. When you anger your customers you find out why and try and make it better. Again not hard.

I think it's important to make the distinction - a majority of posts since the nerfs have been making quips like "how much longer are they going to try and piss us off", and while some are sarcastic, some aren't.

I think it's great that you recognize this is a company issue - but you must notice that clearly a lot of people don't, or they are blaming people like IceIX for it.

I agree entirely with your methodology, but only on paper. In actuality, for example, this forum has less than 2000 members.

Making changes based solely off of the community here, even if it was say 75% of them, would be a terrible terrible choice if it isn't backed by feedback from several other places. Not when the game's downloads are over 500,000, and there are almost 50,000 reviews on Google Play alone.

Actually reviewing the feedback to a change is very very difficult and time consuming - I can personally vouch for this having worked with both forums and moderation of groups before. Even without the design aspect, you ultimately have to remember that sample size/subject pool's relation to the overall potentail.

Otherwise, it's just as bad as polling a small group of citizens in a country, and making sweeping government changes based off of those few.

Again, I'm not trying to make excuses - but I am trying to bring a different perspective to the table.

Unknown

IceIX wrote:

Derethus wrote:

Am I putting some words in their mouth? Maybe. But in response to "You put the nerf at a bad time" I was responded with "There's a wolvie and a thor tourney now! What's a better time?"

I'll say this about the recent character nerfs and associated planned Tournies. We put a few tacks up on the board of "What to avoid in the future if at all possible".

Well this is definitely a start thank you for sharing that. Any chance you could look at some of the other complaint threads such as the ones about the TAX and maybe shed some light if there is any desire backstage to try and smooth over the nerf somehow? If you guys would fix some of the more useless characters first I think that would make a HUGE difference in how changes are perceived.

Unknown

Telicis wrote:

I agree entirely with your methodology, but only on paper. In actuality, for example, this forum has less than 2000 members.

Making changes based solely off of the community here, even if it was say 75% of them, would be a terrible terrible choice if it isn't backed by feedback from several other places. Not when the game's downloads are over 500,000, and there are almost 50,000 reviews on Google Play alone.

Actually reviewing the feedback to a change is very very difficult and time consuming - I can personally vouch for this having worked with both forums and moderation of groups before. Even without the design aspect, you ultimately have to remember that sample size/subject pool's relation to the overall potentail.

Otherwise, it's just as bad as polling a small group of citizens in a country, and making sweeping government changes based off of those few.

Again, I'm not trying to make excuses - but I am trying to bring a different perspective to the table.

On the flip side, the people that post on the company's forums tend to be the most passionate, most invested players. Listening to them isn't a bad idea, because they actually really care about the game.

Unknown

Telicis wrote:

Derethus wrote:

Psykopathic wrote:

But they do have control over design of the game. Will is the lead designer...

Comment not directed towards the rest of your post. I'm unbiased in the apology matter. I'm a results guy.

Wow I need to pay attention to signatures more.

Ok, His response in my thread makes Demiurge seem really incompetent now.

I had not noticed this either.

Which begs the question; Why in the world is the Lead Designer (assuming he works with the Developers - I am willing to concede that in some cases, Designers and Developers are entirely separate groups when it comes to companies/games) having to field questions?

I'm starting to wonder if the issue here is severe lack of manpower rather than incompetence...

justaplayer wrote:

How do any of us know what his duties are he only one of two communicating now so that is who we are talking to. I don't think anyone was holding him personally responsible that I saw and people were mostly posting towards the devs in general. This was a company issue as far as I am concerned and should be addressed as such. All in all you are missing the point. When you anger your customers you find out why and try and make it better. Again not hard.

I think it's important to make the distinction - a majority of posts since the nerfs have been making quips like "how much longer are they going to try and piss us off", and while some are sarcastic, some aren't.

I think it's great that you recognize this is a company issue - but you must notice that clearly a lot of people don't, or they are blaming people like IceIX for it.

I agree entirely with your methodology, but only on paper. In actuality, for example, this forum has less than 2000 members.

Making changes based solely off of the community here, even if it was say 75% of them, would be a terrible terrible choice if it isn't backed by feedback from several other places. Not when the game's downloads are over 500,000, and there are almost 50,000 reviews on Google Play alone.

Actually reviewing the feedback to a change is very very difficult and time consuming - I can personally vouch for this having worked with both forums and moderation of groups before. Even without the design aspect, you ultimately have to remember that sample size/subject pool's relation to the overall potentail.

Otherwise, it's just as bad as polling a small group of citizens in a country, and making sweeping government changes based off of those few.

Again, I'm not trying to make excuses - but I am trying to bring a different perspective to the table.

No one said make changes entirely based on here. Where did I say that? I said the complaints being made here are being made by passionate players who really care about the game. These players spend money alot and many of those that are complaining have spent OBSCENE amounts of money for a game. All I am saying is you shouldn't wait to lose players that are complaining. Maybe you are fine with being a lemming in the dark and having the rug pulled out from under you the rest of us aren't.

Unknown

Derethus wrote:

It's not an exact quote, but:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2942#p45695

Am I putting some words in their mouth? Maybe. But in response to "You put the nerf at a bad time" I was responded with "There's a wolvie and a thor tourney now! What's a better time?"

Doesn't that sort of support his point though? I mean, your question after was "Why did it HAVE to be Thor and Wolverine?"

But ultimately it doesn't refute the point of that everyone but Bag-Man and some of the Dark Avengers ARE, at some point in the next weeks, featured.

Personally, I think the problem is that your actual issue at hand (Why the hell are Thor and Wolverine, the characters SPECIFICALLY getting nerfed, SPECIFICALLY at the forefront of their own tournaments) got lost in translation of a broader issue: "How do we rebalance multiple characters at once if we can't do it in the middle of a tournament?" (The answer is you can't, of course - you need to not run a tournament/event at that time).

Unknown

Telicis wrote:

Derethus wrote:

It's not an exact quote, but:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2942#p45695

Am I putting some words in their mouth? Maybe. But in response to "You put the nerf at a bad time" I was responded with "There's a wolvie and a thor tourney now! What's a better time?"

Doesn't that sort of support his point though? I mean, your question after was "Why did it HAVE to be Thor and Wolverine?"

But ultimately it doesn't refute the point of that everyone but Bag-Man and some of the Dark Avengers ARE, at some point in the next weeks, featured.

Personally, I think the problem is that your actual issue at hand (Why the hell are Thor and Wolverine, the characters SPECIFICALLY getting nerfed, SPECIFICALLY at the forefront of their own tournaments) got lost in translation of a broader issue: "How do we rebalance multiple characters at once if we can't do it in the middle of a tournament?" (The answer is you can't, of course - you need to not run a tournament/event at that time).

Bottom line is the characters that aren't being used because they are worthless should have been fixed first if they wanted more diversity of play not "fix" ones that are popular and playable. If they fixed the others and everyone was still not playing them then they can roll back around and say maybe these guys are too powerful.

Unknown

Telicis wrote:

Derethus wrote:

It's not an exact quote, but:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2942#p45695

Am I putting some words in their mouth? Maybe. But in response to "You put the nerf at a bad time" I was responded with "There's a wolvie and a thor tourney now! What's a better time?"

Doesn't that sort of support his point though? I mean, your question after was "Why did it HAVE to be Thor and Wolverine?"

But ultimately it doesn't refute the point of that everyone but Bag-Man and some of the Dark Avengers ARE, at some point in the next weeks, featured.

Personally, I think the problem is that your actual issue at hand (Why the hell are Thor and Wolverine, the characters SPECIFICALLY getting nerfed, SPECIFICALLY at the forefront of their own tournaments) got lost in translation of a broader issue: "How do we rebalance multiple characters at once if we can't do it in the middle of a tournament?" (The answer is you can't, of course - you need to not run a tournament/event at that time).

Except they can. Imagine if the Wolvie tournament was instead about Captain America, and the current tournament is a No Holds Barred tournament. It'd be a much better time to nerf right now. (Or in particular, last night at the conclusion of the PvE event and before the start of the current). Would it affect some people? It would affect those who join the Captain America tournament, yes.

But it doesn't screw over people who purposefully or accidently joined the Avengers Elite tournament where they might have been relying on Thorverine. It would really only affect people who were relying on Thorverine in the Captain America tournament, but it would allow them to switch to a different strategy. It would also have affected only a single tournament instead of two pvp tournaments and a pve event.

Usually the period of Thursday night/Friday morning is the lower point in #s of tournaments. Big changes to gameplay should happen then.

Unknown

Derethus wrote:

Telicis wrote:

Derethus wrote:

It's not an exact quote, but:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2942#p45695

Am I putting some words in their mouth? Maybe. But in response to "You put the nerf at a bad time" I was responded with "There's a wolvie and a thor tourney now! What's a better time?"

Doesn't that sort of support his point though? I mean, your question after was "Why did it HAVE to be Thor and Wolverine?"

But ultimately it doesn't refute the point of that everyone but Bag-Man and some of the Dark Avengers ARE, at some point in the next weeks, featured.

Personally, I think the problem is that your actual issue at hand (Why the hell are Thor and Wolverine, the characters SPECIFICALLY getting nerfed, SPECIFICALLY at the forefront of their own tournaments) got lost in translation of a broader issue: "How do we rebalance multiple characters at once if we can't do it in the middle of a tournament?" (The answer is you can't, of course - you need to not run a tournament/event at that time).

Except they can. Imagine if the Wolvie tournament was instead about Captain America, and the current tournament is a No Holds Barred tournament. It'd be a much better time to nerf right now. (Or in particular, last night at the conclusion of the PvE event and before the start of the current). Would it affect some people? It would affect those who join the Captain America tournament, yes.

But it doesn't screw over people who purposefully or accidently joined the Avengers Elite tournament where they might have been relying on Thorverine. It would really only affect people who were relying on Thorverine in the Captain America tournament, but it would allow them to switch to a different strategy. It would also have affected only a single tournament instead of two pvp tournaments and a pve event.

Usually the period of Thursday night/Friday morning is the lower point in #s of tournaments. Big changes to gameplay should happen then.

Your missing the entire point don't do it in any event. Schedule a small window of downtime and push it. Plenty of other gaming companies do this it isn't some brand new concept that needs to be grasped.

Unknown

justaplayer wrote:

Derethus wrote:

Telicis wrote:

Derethus wrote:

It's not an exact quote, but:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2942#p45695

Am I putting some words in their mouth? Maybe. But in response to "You put the nerf at a bad time" I was responded with "There's a wolvie and a thor tourney now! What's a better time?"

Doesn't that sort of support his point though? I mean, your question after was "Why did it HAVE to be Thor and Wolverine?"

But ultimately it doesn't refute the point of that everyone but Bag-Man and some of the Dark Avengers ARE, at some point in the next weeks, featured.

Personally, I think the problem is that your actual issue at hand (Why the hell are Thor and Wolverine, the characters SPECIFICALLY getting nerfed, SPECIFICALLY at the forefront of their own tournaments) got lost in translation of a broader issue: "How do we rebalance multiple characters at once if we can't do it in the middle of a tournament?" (The answer is you can't, of course - you need to not run a tournament/event at that time).

Except they can. Imagine if the Wolvie tournament was instead about Captain America, and the current tournament is a No Holds Barred tournament. It'd be a much better time to nerf right now. (Or in particular, last night at the conclusion of the PvE event and before the start of the current). Would it affect some people? It would affect those who join the Captain America tournament, yes.

But it doesn't screw over people who purposefully or accidently joined the Avengers Elite tournament where they might have been relying on Thorverine. It would really only affect people who were relying on Thorverine in the Captain America tournament, but it would allow them to switch to a different strategy. It would also have affected only a single tournament instead of two pvp tournaments and a pve event.

Usually the period of Thursday night/Friday morning is the lower point in #s of tournaments. Big changes to gameplay should happen then.

Your missing the entire point don't do it in any event. Schedule a small window of downtime and push it. Plenty of other gaming companies do this it isn't some brand new concept that needs to be grasped.

They obviously don't want to do this, so I'm suggesting the next best thing.

Unknown

Derethus wrote:

On the flip side, the people that post on the company's forums tend to be the most passionate, most invested players. Listening to them isn't a bad idea, because they actually really care about the game.

justaplayer wrote:

No one said make changes entirely based on here. Where did I say that? I said the complaints being made here are being made by passionate players who really care about the game. These players spend money alot and many of those that are complaining have spent OBSCENE amounts of money for a game. All I am saying is you shouldn't wait to lose players that are complaining. Maybe you are fine with being a lemming in the dark and having the rug pulled out from under you the rest of us aren't.

I'd like to take this time to point out that I directly agree with both of you about this: I am in no way suggesting they ignore the forums here or the people here. It goes without saying that the people here are some of the most intelligent, passionate, and potentially loyal players.

All I am trying to point out is how hard it is to properly assess both sides of the situation. The other side of the coin is this: the most vocal people are NEVER the most intelligent, passionate, and potentially loyal. They are the people who whine, and complain, and yell for someone to nerf something when they lose. The vocal ones are the ones who, in a fit of rage over not getting the exact card they want out of a pack, rate it 1 star or put in a bad review or make an angry forum post.

Honestly? I don't really care one way or another that much - I've played this game less than a month, and I've walked away from games I've put 5+ years of my life into without another thought... some of which, over the course of that time, I poured almost $1000 into. I think the reason I'm being vocal about this situation is because I feel like I'm seeing two sides of the same coin and no one else seems to acknowledge the situation.

Both of you are two clearly intelligent, capable players who are NOT your typical "Hi I'm mad because without (insert thing here, Thorverine right now) I can't just faceroll through an entire tournament and get 2nd place". I could easily get into in-depth conversations and debates about various ways to balance a game, execution of changes, etc without it ending in a flame war (we already have, in a way). That's... really hard to find in most communities.

IceIX is clearly a lot moreful, involved, and frankly a lot more polite than any CM/Forum Mod I've seen in over a year, in any game. There's a lot to be said for that, especially if you've ever run into the opposite (I'm going to bite my tongue and not name names of other games).

And it just... bugs the living **** out of me that people don't seem to be working together to solve the issue. I know it's not a perfect world, where people like you two and people like IceIX can sit down and go "okay, how do we fix this, get it to the Devs, and prevent this from happening again" (long long list of why that's impossible). I guess I just see the potential here, and it frustrates me to no end that it's not seeming to get any better.

Unknown

Derethus wrote:

Your missing the entire point don't do it in any event. Schedule a small window of downtime and push it. Plenty of other gaming companies do this it isn't some brand new concept that needs to be grasped.
They obviously don't want to do this, so I'm suggesting the next best thing.

I thought I was talking with Tecilis so that was who that was directed at way to much quote nesting lol. Anyhow I don't see where they have said they won't do that though.