IceIX - please respond

Unknown

RockMonster wrote:

_fulu_ wrote:

The thing people are not understanding is that in the context with how the devs want the game to be played, Wolvie and Thor are still extremely viable. The only reason there is so much backlash is that there was a very clear saturation of the game with Thorverine. No one needed to pay to get those characters and level them. Being upset about Ragnarok I understand. I loved him when I first married his mom, now he has red hair. But he was rarer and so the outcry was quieter.

Honestly the actual playing of a match is 100% more satisfying now, with team composition more important and more fluid. The problems with the game now boil down to the event specs, ie. broken pve scaling and horrendous matchmaking/progression reward attainability. If d3 can nail those down to a more acceptable status quo, this game will thrive like never before

By "more fluid" team comp I can only assume you meant to say "more web fluid."

Maybe it's just because my roster and MMR are moving me away from 2* and in to 3* territory, but at least 2/3 of my fights are against Spidey.

I've been abusing the use of him for 4 months, but Spidey is being funbalanced soon enough. He will phase out of overuse much like rags/Thor/Wolvie did.

Unknown

_fulu_ wrote:

RockMonster wrote:

_fulu_ wrote:

The thing people are not understanding is that in the context with how the devs want the game to be played, Wolvie and Thor are still extremely viable. The only reason there is so much backlash is that there was a very clear saturation of the game with Thorverine. No one needed to pay to get those characters and level them. Being upset about Ragnarok I understand. I loved him when I first married his mom, now he has red hair. But he was rarer and so the outcry was quieter.

Honestly the actual playing of a match is 100% more satisfying now, with team composition more important and more fluid. The problems with the game now boil down to the event specs, ie. broken pve scaling and horrendous matchmaking/progression reward attainability. If d3 can nail those down to a more acceptable status quo, this game will thrive like never before

By "more fluid" team comp I can only assume you meant to say "more web fluid."

Maybe it's just because my roster and MMR are moving me away from 2* and in to 3* territory, but at least 2/3 of my fights are against Spidey.

I've been abusing the use of him for 4 months, but Spidey is being funbalanced soon enough. He will phase out of overuse much like rags/Thor/Wolvie did.

He'd be a hard one to replace though. There aren't that many 3* skills using yellow, blue or purple AP.

zonatahunt

Thank you everyone for your replies and input. I realize that no one will ever agree on a singular train of thought, but that's what's always so great about open discussions in forums such as these.

Because you are only posting to wind people up. Your questions have been asked and answered in various other threads across this forum. A few of you "agitators" don't want to let it go. Anyone could see that the game was broken due to those three characters pre-adjustments, count yourself lucky you were able to take advantage of it.

Badlands, I'm sorry but I simply don't agree. You might want to lump me into a category of troublemakers, but my post was aimed at obtaining answers for myself. I have yet to see an actual moderator or dev answer the question regarding how many people feel stolen from when it came to the nerfings. While you might think it's been explained multiple times, which many have done, it has yet to be answered by someone who works for D3. That's the difference. I agree, if people had only spent a few dollars here or there, then by me asking this question I'd no doubt be an "agitator". However, while reading through all these posts it's become painfully obvious that a large number of people have spent into the hundreds with several already saying they've spend over a $1000. To spend that kind of money on a product and then to have how that product plays changed after you invest that amount of cash is very disconcerting to those that feel they "lost" that money or had it "stolen". Regardless, thanks Badlands for your input, as all input is appreciated.

As I've said before, I'm not trying to agitate or upset, I'd just like to hear an explanation from a D3 employee regarding this.

Moral

RockMonster wrote:

_fulu_ wrote:

The thing people are not understanding is that in the context with how the devs want the game to be played, Wolvie and Thor are still extremely viable. The only reason there is so much backlash is that there was a very clear saturation of the game with Thorverine. No one needed to pay to get those characters and level them. Being upset about Ragnarok I understand. I loved him when I first married his mom, now he has red hair. But he was rarer and so the outcry was quieter.

Honestly the actual playing of a match is 100% more satisfying now, with team composition more important and more fluid. The problems with the game now boil down to the event specs, ie. broken pve scaling and horrendous matchmaking/progression reward attainability. If d3 can nail those down to a more acceptable status quo, this game will thrive like never before

By "more fluid" team comp I can only assume you meant to say "more web fluid."

Maybe it's just because my roster and MMR are moving me away from 2* and in to 3* territory, but at least 2/3 of my fights are against Spidey.

98% of my fights involve OBW or spidey. Honestly, if my OBW were 85, I'd be running her instead of spidey because the game plays so much faster. I prefer not to have sunk points into both.

Unknown

If you want an answer from a specific person, I would think that it is easier to pm them. Threads on game forums asking "Hey, dev X/Y/Z answer this please" or "devs look at this" tend to be unanswered more than others. Answering personal calls over open threads does many times open all kinda of cans, wormfilled or not.

Unknown

I'd like to address PMing them directly...I've done it multiple times and haven't had any real solid results. At least when its out on a public forum you can gather some momentum and support or share ideas. Do both...PM and post.

I'm with the OP on this...though I think legally one forum MPQ lawyer player said that because we bought HP with money then with that currency purchased something else that it isn't directly money which legally has little to no bite.

Then again. Someone said that in second life someone was sued for stealing furniture and won the lawsuit...i haven't found the source but if that's real then maybe there is bite.

not looking to sue d3p or marvel or anyone. just answers right, OP?

Unknown

You paid for a product and you said product you paid for. People only bought those characters so they could abuse them and after all, this game is subject to change at any point in time.

It's like buying a bag of coke from your dealer, using it and asking fora refund when you used it all up.

zonatahunt

Heck no, I don't want to bring legal action! I just want to see what D3 thinks of their customers, so therefore what I'm arguing are very valid concerns and questions. Many users feel as though they were duped and consequently stolen from. After all, every dollar D3 obtained from their customers is STILL a dollar, while the characters the users spent money towards maximizing are no longer the same characters they initially invested in. Win for D3, lose for the customer. It's this dichotomy I'd like D3 to address.

Moral

Insulted by a 50% refund?

I think they should have started with 100% then deduct the iso and gp awarded from every event those 2 were used, then offer what's left.

I never maxed out Thor and feel like I could have placed a lot better if those players had never spent the money.

To refund their money would be an insult to anyone who constantly got crushed by those teams.

Unknown

Moral wrote:

Insulted by a 50% refund?

I think they should have started with 100% then deduct the iso and gp awarded from every event those 2 were used, then offer what's left.

I never maxed out Thor and feel like I could have placed a lot better if those players had never spent the money.

To refund their money would be an insult to anyone who constantly got crushed by those teams.

I was just about to post the same sort of idea. A possible refund policy would be a decay system where the character starts out 100% refund, but the percentage drops over time/usage until it hits the current baseline. This may also mitigate Devs having to spend time manually addressing all the tickets that come in for accidental purchases.

Unknown

gobstopper wrote:

Moral wrote:

Insulted by a 50% refund?

I think they should have started with 100% then deduct the iso and gp awarded from every event those 2 were used, then offer what's left.

I never maxed out Thor and feel like I could have placed a lot better if those players had never spent the money.

To refund their money would be an insult to anyone who constantly got crushed by those teams.

I was just about to post the same sort of idea. A possible refund policy would be a decay system where the character starts out 100% refund, but the percentage drops over time/usage until it hits the current baseline. This may also mitigate Devs having to spend time manually addressing all the tickets that come in for accidental purchases.

This is a much better suggestion than anything else I've seen.

I feel like people are trying to look at D3 in a vacuum - as though it's somehow doing something different. Since first getting a smartphone years ago, I've cycled through close to a hundred Freemium/microtransaction games like this one (Google play suggests far more by download, but a lot of those are Alchemy/app based rather than actual games). And frankly I find this game to be more lenient than most in how it hands out things. The fact they even increased the refund for Thor/Wolverine blows my mind, honestly.

In most games, not only are nerfs/buffs consistently handed out, they are not early announced, nor are they handled with any delicateness. If something is too strong or common, it WILL be dealt with, and in most cases far more heavyhanded than Rag, Thor, or Wolverine. The only times where outcries are even remotely respected is when a character has been reduced to weaker levels than any of its predecessors. A comparison would be, say, Ragnarok being considered 'well within standards' because he's still more powerful than Bag-Man/Yelena/etc. It's not good by any means, nor handled well, but this is the reality of any online gaming that has some essence of PvP (IE over 90% of them). Honestly, I was kind of surprised by how light Thor/Wolverine were handled in comparison. On the same level as many other companies, at least one ability would be FLAT OUT REMOVED, and the others nerfed down in both damage, cost, and probably HP overall reduced.

An extreme example: There's a game (that shall rename unnamed publicly, because I have many many many negative things to say about it) that was at one point one of the most popular app games of all time. It basically functioned off a five card deck, every card had an ability that could activate (Anyone familiar with War of Heroes can imagine what I'm saying - same concept). Well... with probably no more than a week's warning and very little fanfare they changed the entire system. For the entire time the game was out (which was quite a while), the end goal was always to get multiples of the strongest cards (ability and stats wise), to chain off each other mathematically.

The change was to the skill system: basically, it meant that each time a skill was triggered, it would reduce the chance for the next similar one to trigger, and/or how powerful it was. And unless I somehow missed something in the month or so I played after, there was ABSOLUTELY nothing else changed to account for it. No refunds, no sale prices, not a thing except a few discounts on buying new packs (with money, of course). The stronger someone's deck had been before (and thus the more expensive), the more screwed they were. This is in a game with thousands of thousands of cards, where you had to have 12-16 copies of the same card to max it out through four stages of fusion. It was literally over a thousand dollars to get one of the best decks in the game, in most cases (again, anyone who has played Marvel War of Heroes is familiar with a system like this). And if you had? Well, you were up ****'s creep, and the company didn't care - that game is still in the top grossing, and only recently fell out of the top "Free" (because it's free to download).

Let me make this clear to everyone, especially the OP: I'm not disagreeing with your reasoning, at all. I just feel as though what you're speaking of exists in an ideal world, one which hasn't existed in current business models of mobile/online gaming, and one I doubt ever will. For example, zonata: You clearly are thinking clearly and have logical conclusions that are based on solid business ethics (deprecation of value for one end of an exchange but not the other, which would be a serious issue)... I've just never seen that exercised in any game, with any customer, to any frequency.

Not in the world I've seen and played in, where combos like Thorverine were not only balanced, but top players from those tournaments were outright BANNED, with their rewards never given to anyone else (IE lost in the metaphorical void). Not where (this applies only to mobile games I've seen, not browser/P2P based) in many cases the only 'help' you'll get for seeing your main characters nerfed into literal oblivion (IE the equivalent of lowered HP, an ability removed, and the rest doubled in cost halved in power) is the release of the new 5-6 characters that week, which trump everything else ANYWAY.

I'm not saying I like that it's that way, I'm not saying it's a good thing ('cause it's not - I can and have written essays on game balance as a whole, and the importance of it)... I'm just confused as to why people who have ever spent more than a few months in the online/mobile gaming world of freemium/microtransactions expect anything different.

Unknown

Saint Matthew wrote:

I'd like to address PMing them directly...I've done it multiple times and haven't had any real solid results. At least when its out on a public forum you can gather some momentum and support or share ideas. Do both...PM and post.

I'm with the OP on this...though I think legally one forum MPQ lawyer player said that because we bought HP with money then with that currency purchased something else that it isn't directly money which legally has little to no bite.

Then again. Someone said that in second life someone was sued for stealing furniture and won the lawsuit...i haven't found the source but if that's real then maybe there is bite.

not looking to sue d3p or marvel or anyone. just answers right, OP?

It depends on the License Agreement. If it was in the US the lawsuit probably had less to do with theft and more to do with infringing upon someone's intellectual property. I believe South Korea and The Phillipines have laws that protect virtual goods.