Top 50

Unknown

Raffoon wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

I don't understand. So all players should get him? Or where would you draw the line without pissing off the people left right under line? Then what would make him or any other 4* special?

Right, and if men can marry other men, what's next, ANIMALS? CHAIRS?

I think perhaps there's a middle ground between 5% and 100%, right?

I'd say at least top 150 should get a cover, like with 3* releases. Remember, this is a release event. It happens once, along with a PVP event with a progression reward. After that, Carnage gets to wait in line for the rotation of top 1, top 1-2, and 1k progression along with.... I don't even feel like counting how many 4* there are now. Is it 7, 8, 9?

Hell, if they just went ahead and gave 1/1/1 to every person that participated, everyone would still have 10 more covers and a bunch of ISO to go before they really "have" the character.

So what makes 4* characters special? They're more powerful and harder (or just more expensive) to get than 3*s. If more than 5% of people get covers in the initial release, the 4* characters will still continue to be harder to get and more powerful than 3*s.

giving players 1/1/1 also gives them the option to buy all covers, something D3 should be happy about

Pylgrim

ArkPrime wrote:

Raffoon wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

I don't understand. So all players should get him? Or where would you draw the line without pissing off the people left right under line? Then what would make him or any other 4* special?

Right, and if men can marry other men, what's next, ANIMALS? CHAIRS?

I for one am against man chair marriage. It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Herman Miller

But yes, slippery slope arguments are almost always asinine.

Yeah, those chair freaks are the ones giving us decent table-lovers a bad name.

Also, I'd argue that it was a hyperbole, not a slippery slope as I was not implying that we were setting a course towards a continuous downward trend. Perhaps unnecessary. I just wanted to know where the poster would draw the line.

I'd say at least top 150 should get a cover, like with 3* releases. Remember, this is a release event. It happens once, along with a PVP event with a progression reward. After that, Carnage gets to wait in line for the rotation of top 1, top 1-2, and 1k progression along with.... I don't even feel like counting how many 4* there are now. Is it 7, 8, 9?

Hell, if they just went ahead and gave 1/1/1 to every person that participated, everyone would still have 10 more covers and a bunch of ISO to go before they really "have" the character.

So what makes 4* characters special? They're more powerful and harder (or just more expensive) to get than 3*s. If more than 5% of people get covers in the initial release, the 4* characters will still continue to be harder to get and more powerful than 3*s.

You make some good points, but I'm not sure... it just doesn't feel right that it is as easy to first get all the covers of a 4* as a 3*'s? Especially since getting at least 1 cover (at top 150) barely requires any effort at all. Maybe they could make it so all 3* releases are 3-4 days, and 4* releases are 7, while keeping a similar prize scheme?

Raffoon

Pylgrim wrote:

You make some good points, but I'm not sure... it just doesn't feel right that it is as easy to first get all the covers of a 4* as a 3*'s? Especially since getting at least 1 cover (at top 150) barely requires any effort at all. Maybe they could make it so all 3* releases are 3-4 days, and 4* releases are 7, while keeping a similar prize scheme?

Sure, I'll take a bit of hyperbole Fair enough, in that it's a probe for a suggestion.

To your point, I could definitely see it feeling a little weird giving out that many covers for a 4*. Even a 7 day schedule like you mentioned would be better than what's currently there in my opinion. I think a big part of that perception may just be what we're used to, though. Historically, the developers have been very stingy with the covers, and that's something that's just recently started to turn around with the expanded alliance 4* rewards and DDQ.

I think that player enjoyment should be a large concern for them so giving more covers would be a positive, but even if we remove that as a factor, more 4* covers still makes sense from a business perspective. They do previews, write-ups, and announcements to build hype, and then for 95 out of 100 people turn around and say:

"Well..... you know that cool new character? You can't have him. Oh, you want him? Well, even if you paid us 100 dollars in tokens, there's still a quite considerable chance that you still wouldn't have any covers for him! Oh, and if you want to max him after you do find covers, it will be another 100 dollars, or you can get top 1-2 in events (or max him with progression rewards over the course of a year and a half). Enjoy! Exciting! New charaaacter!!!" (oh, and if you do manage to find a cover for him, it'll just be around 1000 HP so you can have him sit in your roster unused for another year. YAY NEW CHARACTERRR!!!)

I mean... they have the data, so maybe this is working for them, but I just don't see how consistently aggravating 95% of your players every time a 4* comes out is a good business model. I know personally that once they pissed me off enough, I cut all of my funding to the game. If they took a more player-friendly approach, I'd still be paying.

GrumpySmurf1002

El Satanno wrote:

ArkPrime wrote:

I for one am against man chair marriage. It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Herman Miller

But yes, slippery slope arguments are almost always asinine.

How dare you, sir?! Chairs are people, too! They love and live just like the rest of us! You are an animal!

<insert Clint Eastwood joke here>

Unknown

Just plugging along in order to get my Ironman I play real casual, all 1 Carnage cover will do for me is force me to buy another roster slot and then just sit there unused for a long long time.

But good luck to those fighting for him, its a long 7 day grind. You will have definitely earned it at the end of the event.

Wolarsen

Last progression rewards are roughly:
30k: 2*Daken, 34k: 500 Iso, 38k:IM40
Remove the not much use 2* and set like:
30k: 500 ISO, 34k: IM40, 38k:Carnage

You are not exactly giving the Carnage away, but granting appeal to non-top competitive PvE users. Giving seed 4* should be good for D·, if only for opening the sale chance to for covers and roster slots.

Wolarsen

"by mike h » Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:28 pm

Just plugging along in order to get my Ironman I play real casual, all 1 Carnage cover will do for me is force me to buy another roster slot and then just sit there unused for a long long time."

Absolutely understandable, but you would still have THE CHOICE of keeping or tossing (for 500 ISO) it!

optimus2861

Raffoon wrote:

I mean... they have the data, so maybe this is working for them, but I just don't see how consistently aggravating 95% of your players every time a 4* comes out is a good business model. I know personally that once they pissed me off enough, I cut all of my funding to the game. If they took a more player-friendly approach, I'd still be paying.

In games like this, 90% to 99% of the game's income comes from the top 5% to 1% of spenders. When I used to play Transformers: Legends, the post-event threads were really enlightening in this respect. The top 100 finishers in most events were responsible for 99%+ of all money being spent, and the game was routinely pulling 10,000+ players per event at the time (I think I did the math on one thread once, and it was north of 99.5% coming from T100).

If you would have been considered a whale, and a new whale took your place... they don't care that you don't spend any more. Player churn is normal in games like this. Old whales go, new whales come. Newbies try the game every day, and maybe they get hooked to become new whales. They only need that 1-in-100, 1-in-1000 to get seriously hooked to make their revenue targets, so they just don't gear the game toward being "spend a little every month" friendly, because they'd never make their targets that way.

It's disappointing, because you'd think a jewel-matching game is just the ticket to keep those casual, low-$ spenders interested, but the game seems to be taking on more of a whales-centric approach over the last couple of months. This glut of new character releases has been just plain vicious.

Pylgrim

Raffoon wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

You make some good points, but I'm not sure... it just doesn't feel right that it is as easy to first get all the covers of a 4* as a 3*'s? Especially since getting at least 1 cover (at top 150) barely requires any effort at all. Maybe they could make it so all 3* releases are 3-4 days, and 4* releases are 7, while keeping a similar prize scheme?

Sure, I'll take a bit of hyperbole Fair enough, in that it's a probe for a suggestion.

To your point, I could definitely see it feeling a little weird giving out that many covers for a 4*. Even a 7 day schedule like you mentioned would be better than what's currently there in my opinion. I think a big part of that perception may just be what we're used to, though. Historically, the developers have been very stingy with the covers, and that's something that's just recently started to turn around with the expanded alliance 4* rewards and DDQ.

I think that player enjoyment should be a large concern for them so giving more covers would be a positive, but even if we remove that as a factor, more 4* covers still makes sense from a business perspective.

I've been thinking a lot about this and though you are right, it does make more sense to make more people get the 4* and potentially making them spend money to max them up, I believe there's also a concern for player engagement, especially for the top players. Setting a relatively small reward zone may cause some disgruntled players (I'd argue is not 95% since people who'd place 200-800 never would/could put the effort towards the cover even if it was given at top 150). However, for the people who play for it, there is a rush, a drive of competition. A scarce, premium reward that only a few elite get is for many one of the most exciting things they can do in the game: there's fierce competition, lots of planning ahead to make, seemingly insurmountable odds (scaling) and the such. Getting the number of covers that you set yourself up to get causes enormous satisfaction, the true value of the covers being precisely their scarcity which makes them trophies more than anything else.

I've heard some suggestions about this, such as making the covers a more widespread reward and reserving for the more competitive people less in-game relevant awards such achievements, displayable trophies or cosmetic features. This sounds like a good idea to me, but would it be a good idea for everybody? Would players that play super hardcore to achieve an usable cover play as hard to get a tiny, useless image of a trophy or the such? I don't know but certainly sounds like a feature that would require lots of work to implement and may end actually diminishing player engagement. Like most paradigm shifts there's some risk involved and cannot be done lightly; this is especially true if the current paradigm is
apparently working for most measurable purposes so it's considered "unbroken" and in no need of a fix.

optimus2861 wrote:

It's disappointing, because you'd think a jewel-matching game is just the ticket to keep those casual, low-$ spenders interested, but the game seems to be taking on more of a whales-centric approach over the last couple of months. This glut of new character releases has been just plain vicious.

Interestingly, if you paid attention to much of the complaining in the forums over the past few months, you'll find out that in fact, there's a widespread belief that the game has shifted to be more newbie/casual-friendly than vet-catering and many whales have publicly quitted or gone F2P. Also, after the release-fest centered around Age of Ultron, we've had long stretches (or longer than normal, at any rate) of release-less events and by now we have pretty much gone back to the long-standing average of a character per fortnight.

Taganov

Pylgrim wrote:

Interestingly, if you paid attention to much of the complaining in the forums over the past few months, you'll find out that in fact, there's a widespread belief that the game has shifted to be more newbie/casual-friendly than vet-catering and many whales have publicly quitted or gone F2P. Also, after the release-fest centered around Age of Ultron, we've had long stretches (or longer than normal, at any rate) of release-less events and by now we have pretty much gone back to the long-standing average of a character per fortnight.

The F2P model has always been about attracting new(b) whales, not retaining old ones; whales/payers become increasingly less likely to spend the longer they stay.

Spoit

Taganov wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

Interestingly, if you paid attention to much of the complaining in the forums over the past few months, you'll find out that in fact, there's a widespread belief that the game has shifted to be more newbie/casual-friendly than vet-catering and many whales have publicly quitted or gone F2P. Also, after the release-fest centered around Age of Ultron, we've had long stretches (or longer than normal, at any rate) of release-less events and by now we have pretty much gone back to the long-standing average of a character per fortnight.

The F2P model has always been about attracting new(b) whales, not retaining old ones; whales/payers become increasingly less likely to spend the longer they stay.

Yeah, I don't care about 3*s players beating me, but these jokers with 94 max rosters going and waltzing into the top 10 ahead of me just kind of boil my blood

Unknown

Spoit wrote:

Yeah, I don't care about 3*s players beating me, but these jokers with 94 max rosters going and waltzing into the top 10 ahead of me just kind of boil my blood

Do you honestly believe this?
Do you think that nodes just magically clear themselves if you have a level 94 roster?

The hard truth is that no matter how good you are, there will always be someone more willing to grind more optimally then you. Sometimes you just get tough shards.

It sucks that they continue to make it top 50 for 4* rewards. It'd be nice if they had a crazy high 4* progression reward in these releases (maybe even for the last 4*?), and bear the brunt of the entitled complainers saying they can't make it.

SnowcaTT

raisinbman wrote:

Raffoon wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

I don't understand. So all players should get him? Or where would you draw the line without pissing off the people left right under line? Then what would make him or any other 4* special?

Right, and if men can marry other men, what's next, ANIMALS? CHAIRS?

I think perhaps there's a middle ground between 5% and 100%, right?

I'd say at least top 150 should get a cover, like with 3* releases. Remember, this is a release event. It happens once, along with a PVP event with a progression reward. After that, Carnage gets to wait in line for the rotation of top 1, top 1-2, and 1k progression along with.... I don't even feel like counting how many 4* there are now. Is it 7, 8, 9?

Hell, if they just went ahead and gave 1/1/1 to every person that participated, everyone would still have 10 more covers and a bunch of ISO to go before they really "have" the character.

So what makes 4* characters special? They're more powerful and harder (or just more expensive) to get than 3*s. If more than 5% of people get covers in the initial release, the 4* characters will still continue to be harder to get and more powerful than 3*s.

giving players 1/1/1 also gives them the option to buy all covers, something D3 should be happy about

This is why I really liked the -first- Ultron event. It was really easy to hit all three covers, and a 1/1/1 isn't something D3 shouldn't be concerned about giving away to any alliance who made a half-hearted effort. I really wish the second Ultron (for the 4*) event was at that same level, and other 4*'s were released in a manner like that.

Unknown

SnowcaTT wrote:

raisinbman wrote:

Raffoon wrote:

Pylgrim wrote:

I don't understand. So all players should get him? Or where would you draw the line without pissing off the people left right under line? Then what would make him or any other 4* special?

Right, and if men can marry other men, what's next, ANIMALS? CHAIRS?

I think perhaps there's a middle ground between 5% and 100%, right?

I'd say at least top 150 should get a cover, like with 3* releases. Remember, this is a release event. It happens once, along with a PVP event with a progression reward. After that, Carnage gets to wait in line for the rotation of top 1, top 1-2, and 1k progression along with.... I don't even feel like counting how many 4* there are now. Is it 7, 8, 9?

Hell, if they just went ahead and gave 1/1/1 to every person that participated, everyone would still have 10 more covers and a bunch of ISO to go before they really "have" the character.

So what makes 4* characters special? They're more powerful and harder (or just more expensive) to get than 3*s. If more than 5% of people get covers in the initial release, the 4* characters will still continue to be harder to get and more powerful than 3*s.

giving players 1/1/1 also gives them the option to buy all covers, something D3 should be happy about

This is why I really liked the -first- Ultron event. It was really easy to hit all three covers, and a 1/1/1 isn't something D3 shouldn't be concerned about giving away to any alliance who made a half-hearted effort. I really wish the second Ultron (for the 4*) event was at that same level, and other 4*'s were released in a manner like that.

if only - but they seem set in the mindset' if players just tried harder' etc etc.

Unknown

daibar wrote:

Spoit wrote:

Yeah, I don't care about 3*s players beating me, but these jokers with 94 max rosters going and waltzing into the top 10 ahead of me just kind of boil my blood

Do you honestly believe this?
Do you think that nodes just magically clear themselves if you have a level 94 roster?

The hard truth is that no matter how good you are, there will always be someone more willing to grind more optimally then you. Sometimes you just get tough shards.

It sucks that they continue to make it top 50 for 4* rewards. It'd be nice if they had a crazy high 4* progression reward in these releases (maybe even for the last 4*?), and bear the brunt of the entitled complainers saying they can't make it.

To use an example dffiv gave, he had Moonstone/The Hood/Doom at 214 in his essential with Johnny Storm. Here, we can assume a maxed Johnny Storm contributes next to nothing against a level 214 The Hood, so it's basically 2 on 3. We can roughly simulate this battle as a standard battle against a level 321 The Hood/Moonstone/Doom since the player is short-handed, and even that is fairly optimistic since usually missing one leg of your combo impacts you far more than just a linear addition to your team's power.

Based on the data I've collected on low scaling, I'd expect a 94* max roster to face that node in around level 80-100 range. A max 94* roster can easily have 3 2*s that are boosted to 150. At level 150, with just match damage boosts, The Hood at the 80-100 range doesn't even stand a chance of surviving against that due to his excessively low HPs. Unlike the veteran, here a maxed Johnny Storm is quite capable of pulling his weight, so it's a standard 3on3, not the lopsided 2on3 situation the veteran faces. The essential node are particularly unfair, and yet they tend to account for the most points in an event. It's probably closer on the standard 'hard' nodes but this is still a huge advantage given clearing essentials down to 1 is no longer a given for top rosters while still easily done for weaker rosters.

And this is only the logical part. There's nothing stopping people from thinking the guy ahead of them who has identical scaling just happens to have less scaling, because none of this stuff is verifiable. If you played Diablo 1, you'll be familiar that everyone thinks everyone besides themselves is a cheater even though it's only about 1/3 of all players are cheaters. It's pretty much the same scenario here, as even if only a small portion of the players benefit from scaling, that sure won't stop everyone from thinking everyone else had it easier with scaling. Keep in mind we also know that people with very similar roster can still have significantly different scaling, so even if you see some guy with the same roster ahead of you, there's nothing stopping you from assuming he also has less scaling than you.

Malcrof

Phantron wrote:

daibar wrote:

Spoit wrote:

Yeah, I don't care about 3*s players beating me, but these jokers with 94 max rosters going and waltzing into the top 10 ahead of me just kind of boil my blood

Do you honestly believe this?
Do you think that nodes just magically clear themselves if you have a level 94 roster?

The hard truth is that no matter how good you are, there will always be someone more willing to grind more optimally then you. Sometimes you just get tough shards.

It sucks that they continue to make it top 50 for 4* rewards. It'd be nice if they had a crazy high 4* progression reward in these releases (maybe even for the last 4*?), and bear the brunt of the entitled complainers saying they can't make it.

To use an example dffiv gave, he had Moonstone/The Hood/Doom at 214 in his essential with Johnny Storm. Here, we can assume a maxed Johnny Storm contributes next to nothing against a level 214 The Hood, so it's basically 2 on 3. We can roughly simulate this battle as a standard battle against a level 321 The Hood/Moonstone/Doom since the player is short-handed, and even that is fairly optimistic since usually missing one leg of your combo impacts you far more than just a linear addition to your team's power.

Based on the data I've collected on low scaling, I'd expect a 94* max roster to face that node in around level 80-100 range. A max 94* roster can easily have 3 2*s that are boosted to 150. At level 150, with just match damage boosts, The Hood at the 80-100 range doesn't even stand a chance of surviving against that due to his excessively low HPs. Unlike the veteran, here a maxed Johnny Storm is quite capable of pulling his weight, so it's a standard 3on3, not the lopsided 2on3 situation the veteran faces. The essential node are particularly unfair, and yet they tend to account for the most points in an event. It's probably closer on the standard 'hard' nodes but this is still a huge advantage given clearing essentials down to 1 is no longer a given for top rosters while still easily done for weaker rosters.

And this is only the logical part. There's nothing stopping people from thinking the guy ahead of them who has identical scaling just happens to have less scaling, because none of this stuff is verifiable. If you played Diablo 1, you'll be familiar that everyone thinks everyone besides themselves is a cheater even though it's only about 1/3 of all players are cheaters. It's pretty much the same scenario here, as even if only a small portion of the players benefit from scaling, that sure won't stop everyone from thinking everyone else had it easier with scaling. Keep in mind we also know that people with very similar roster can still have significantly different scaling, so even if you see some guy with the same roster ahead of you, there's nothing stopping you from assuming he also has less scaling than you.

Actually, with Storm, he DOES contribute.. if you can get his green to fire off.. since it consumes greens per turn, when you make a green match, there is less AP for hood to steal, while slowly ticking Hood's HP away.

That has worked every single time.. side note, that node is only lvl 195 for me right now.