justaplayer wrote: 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.
Derethus wrote: justaplayer wrote: Derethus wrote: 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.
justaplayer wrote: Derethus wrote: 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.
Derethus wrote: 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.
Telicis wrote: Hell, even better: Have the only content be non-card-reward tournaments. No specifically boosted characters (so no extra coding), no rewards beyond Standard/Heroic boosters and LOTS of ISO for the top spots. I could be wrong and alone in this, but I think if it meant solving the issues at hand, I'd gladly take only that for a week.
mechgouki wrote: Deer717 wrote: I'm not holding my breath for a respec. But everyone, EVERYONE, keeps saying that the devs are making a respec system! That means that it has to be coming! IT HAS TO!
Deer717 wrote: I'm not holding my breath for a respec.
Stillhart wrote: I suspect the respec option will work more like this: If you have 13 covers and you get a new cover you want to use, you select which existing cover you want to go away when you apply the new one. I doubt it'll be anything more complicated than that. You'll need the new cover first.
pasa_ wrote: mechgouki wrote: Deer717 wrote: I'm not holding my breath for a respec. But everyone, EVERYONE, keeps saying that the devs are making a respec system! That means that it has to be coming! IT HAS TO! Not true: the realists already concluded that if iw was not deployed at the latest right moment (that was along with the latest nerfs INSTEAD or beside their buyback options) it will not be coming, as the devs not want it. Actually yo could read the same out way earlier from dev post, that said it's on top of backlog but can't say ETA. Those who know the process recognize the contradiction in terms. (Or they have the backlog topology reversed and their top is really other's bottom, but for our purposes it is the same effect: respec goes against their will, it's not a matter of resources but business strategy.
Psykopathic wrote: I guarantee if they would implement a respec system where you could put 15 points into a cover but only have 13/15 active, Then they could charge 1250/2500 / whatever a single cover of that rank would cost in order to change their 13/15 that it would definitely be in their interest, because covers would be getting respecs on a weekly basis testing out builds etc etc etc. I don't see their current system being a very good solution because you would have to find the cover and not really have to put hp in. For example ( all my 2* are max cover so I don't remember upgrade price, let's say 600) I have a 5/5/3 Thor. I want a 3/5/5 Thor. It's not hard to find 2 green covers over the period of a week to put into him = devs make zilch. On the other hand I would have no problem at all paying 600hp to expedite the process and make my cover the way I desire. Also to a lot of people 600hp wouldn't be a big deal to toss out and test out some builds.
Telicis wrote: Derethus wrote: The problem is that they won't admit that they timed it poorly. I don't want them to not have content. But schedule events with other characters when you know a nerf is incoming. Don't have a full week and a half of events that feature 2 characters you plan on nerfing in that week and a half. However, based on IceIX and Will's replies, it's not possible for them to do this sort of planning. All I want is them to say "Sorry, we nerfed them at a bad time, we'll TRY to be better" While I can't fault you for admitting you want an apology, it does remind me of a fascinating book on vindication/redemption/etc. It was about how people typically want things to be made up for in one of several ways. To some people, an apology is of the utmost importance. To others, it is a solution. Others still might just want revenge or a peace offering. I think it is necessary that you and I agree to disagree. While you want them to say sorry, I don't. On the contrary, the single most infuriating thing they could do, to me, was apologize, and then screw it up again. To me, an apology without action is worse than no apology at all - but sufficient action taken means I neither require, nor care about if I get an apology after. Neither my way of thinking, nor yours, are wrong... But I think this is a difference worth pointing out.
Derethus wrote: The problem is that they won't admit that they timed it poorly. I don't want them to not have content. But schedule events with other characters when you know a nerf is incoming. Don't have a full week and a half of events that feature 2 characters you plan on nerfing in that week and a half. However, based on IceIX and Will's replies, it's not possible for them to do this sort of planning. All I want is them to say "Sorry, we nerfed them at a bad time, we'll TRY to be better"
Telicis wrote: Psykopathic wrote: I guarantee if they would implement a respec system where you could put 15 points into a cover but only have 13/15 active, Then they could charge 1250/2500 / whatever a single cover of that rank would cost in order to change their 13/15 that it would definitely be in their interest, because covers would be getting respecs on a weekly basis testing out builds etc etc etc. I don't see their current system being a very good solution because you would have to find the cover and not really have to put hp in. For example ( all my 2* are max cover so I don't remember upgrade price, let's say 600) I have a 5/5/3 Thor. I want a 3/5/5 Thor. It's not hard to find 2 green covers over the period of a week to put into him = devs make zilch. On the other hand I would have no problem at all paying 600hp to expedite the process and make my cover the way I desire. Also to a lot of people 600hp wouldn't be a big deal to toss out and test out some builds. While this idea itself isn't new, it just sparked something in my brain: 600 Hp is what, $5? A $5 profit for every card someone wants to change. That is... a crazy profit in comparison. Even longstanding MMOs I've seen, charging $10 for any kind of respec in an otherwise permanent game is considered ridiculous for most. But here, where it would factually happen more often (and probably lead to more than $10 a week from each player who chose to), is a HUGE profit margin in comparison for such a small (compared to MMO) game. They REALLY should implement this.
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.
pasa_ wrote: 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. Err, you mean at this point their "look incompetent" status in your eyes is actually dependent on some answer or lack thereof? The series of actions and inactions as not enough to arbitrate?
Telicis wrote: I'm starting to wonder if the issue here is severe lack of manpower rather than incompetence...
Derethus wrote: 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.
pasa_ wrote: Derethus wrote: 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. More obviously they could have a re-run of No Man's Land, and Good Is Bad (latter is long overdue anyway!) that requres absolutely nothing to develop. And are orthogonal with the dumped changes. Certainly many other kinds of tournaments could be created to similar effect.
pasa_ wrote: Telicis wrote: I'm starting to wonder if the issue here is severe lack of manpower rather than incompetence... That supposed to be a difference? The company has a set of resources. Available manpower is one of those. It can be allocated and used in many ways. "Lack" of it can be evaluated only in terms of scope/tasks/assigned work. If the people responsible to for allocation put more work on shoulders of workers they can't realisticly deliver in proper quality, that is manifestation of incompetence.
Psykopathic wrote: pasa_ wrote: 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. Err, you mean at this point their "look incompetent" status in your eyes is actually dependent on some answer or lack thereof? The series of actions and inactions as not enough to arbitrate? As implied by the thumbtack statement of "what not to do's" I think negligent is a much more fitting word than incompetent. They simply overlooked some VERY important things that were much more obvious to the player base than to them.
Derethus wrote: Earlier, in the thread I made, I asked them to not nerf characters in the the middle of tournaments featuring them. Their response was "we have events all the time, if we don't nerf them now, when will we nerf them?" even though there were a lot of alternatives on presented on these forums. This kind of response makes them look incompetent.
Derethus wrote: They eventually responded with something more uplifting.
mechgouki wrote: Step 1: Offer 2 OP characters and make people fight to get them. Step 2: Nerf the characters. Make them impotent. Step 3: Offer a huge incentive to sell off these characters. Step 4: Create new tourneys featuring these characters. Step 5: Do the Nelson Laugh.