Seriously a Thor tourney?

Unknown

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.

They haven't... I'm just assuming.

Unknown

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.

So we are all on the same page... While my point was more about PvE, I tried to make this same point here, and it applies to PvP as well. I imagine pretty much all the passionate loyal players would gladly take a day, or maybe even a few days/a weekend/maybe a week? of absolutely no new content if it meant addressing serious issues with balance, matchmaking, etc.

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.

Unknown

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.

I would love this. Would be nice to have more iso for my characters.

Unknown

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.

Unknown

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.

Yes, that is the most reasonable way, that can be implemented in couple hours tops. Probably it is implemented in the codebase long ago. But will not see the daylight until someone very up has a change of heart (or job).

Unknown

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.

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 speed the process up 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.

Unknown

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.

Unknown

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.

The confusion probably roots in the overloaded nature of "apology". We mean different things on it, so it comes to "different" conclusions while in reality everyone processes a different part of the Elephant. If apology is meant along lines excellent move :evity ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0304328/ ) it hardly leaves room to screwing up again (at least on the same path).

But is apology meant as the common parent forces his kid to do it to someone spelling "i'm sorry" -- that is sure something not wanted by anyone with sane thinking.

Unknown

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.

Yeah I mentioned making hp cost of respec equivalent to a single cover cost before
The 13/15 thing has been mentioned by others before.

This time I just combined my idea with theirs, reguardless, you received my point exactly as I had intended it to come across. A $5 respec is perfectly reasonable and would most likely be accepted as a positive improvement by 95% of the player base.

Unknown

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?

Unknown

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.

Unknown

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?

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. They eventually responded with something more uplifting.

Do I still want to see if they act on their statements? Yes. But that will be weeks away. If they are going to respond to something, they should do so in a way that doesn't look dumb.

Unknown

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.

Unknown

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.

Unknown

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.

I'm waiting for "the doctor is in" being it's the only tourney I can remember not to have a repeat.

Unknown

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.

In terms of locationg and solving the problem, yes, there's a huge difference: You can't solve lack of manpower by firing people. You can solve incompetence very quickly with that, however.

Case in point: If for some ungodly reason they have only, say, 3 people total in the Development team, that's a lack of manpower. The incompetence exists in the people who decided "hey we should be cheap and only hire/we only need 3 people", in which case that person needs to be overuled or removed.

On the other hand, if there's a crew of say 50 people, but the 4-5 responsible for managing each team are carrying the idiot ball, that requires a different approach.

Unknown

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.

Good wording -- that's what we in short call the incompetency. Not necessarily for any particular individual, but on a company level?
We run a *process* with planning, design, design reviews and many other things exactly to make overlooking important -- let alone VERY important -- things. It may be overlooked by one person, but by everyone through the whole deployment cycle?

Now seriously, isn't it a no-brainer NOT dropping drastic changes on top of ongoing tournaments or select anyo of the other 30 characters to be featured in the next few days? What distance you need to keep from the actual play arena so that not a single person will call it out, shouting "HAVE YOU LOST IT COMPLETELY?" Or most of the other effects people keep complaining about (delta the nerf content itself)?

If they knew it's bad and did anyway, that's incompetency for doing the wrong thing, and if not, for the utter ignorance.

But certainly using different terms will not help the situation a bit -- either the past or the future. My real problem is that most signs show that the dews are content and believe they did a fairly good job with maybe some minor bumps, and actually believe their claim that it was the only reasonable way. THAT is more the frightening as shows not much future for having fun in this game.

They are obviously not engaged eating their own dogfood, and it shows. (ref: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2004/04/16.html )

Unknown

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.

Yes, that was one of the action I was implicitly referring. They did it that way, then showed that it was not an accident, but product of their way of thinking.

Derethus wrote:

They eventually responded with something more uplifting.

Good for you, I didn't notice the light, and such drops are not just undone easily. Sometimes people talk in haste and steer way off how they think naturally. Other times quite the opposite, the masks fall off and go to pure and honest mode. To me that statement fits properly. With all what happening.

Unknown

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.

Anyone else lolled at this? It was the best one I came up with in a long time.

Nemek

It would have been much funnier in 1998.