On Generosity (Devs feel vs players)

Ctenko

I don't know if we're allowed to plug things, or direct people places, if that's actually against the rules. I know open solicitation is, but I don't think this is.

But really The latest Jimquisition is really telling on things like this. Not just putting your head down and taking it, and instead continuing to speak our opinion. It's an important thing. The more you let people get away with things, the more they try to get away with. Not implying or saying ALL DEVS ARE EVIL, or even saying these guys are. Up till Galactus itself they produced a superb product I was keen to enjoy. Even when it was hard. (Stupid 4* fights in DDP.)

But so far, Most of us have been pretty good. I'm still waiting on the apology for those words. They were truly fighting words. But, I'm not holding my breath. The anniversary pack fixes are really nice though. Certainly in the spirit of generosity. Though maybe the 10 and 40 packs could use further tweaking. Still kinda behind Heroics, at almost twice the price, and over twice the price on a 40.

Omega Red

firethorne wrote:

Omega Red wrote:

firethorne wrote:

Omega Red wrote:

Progress would have been slower but given how quickly this was completed by the first bunch of alliances I think it's pretty safe to say that at least five would have done it even without force quit.

At least 5 alliances? Sure. 5 out of what, roughly 20,000 or so? That is my main problem with the state of the game right now. They are making content that caters to an increasingly smaller and smaller audience, while advertising to more and more. Yeah, I have no doubt 0.025% of the alliances out there can skate by. I'm just not saying designing events that are a disappointment to 99.975% of your customers is a good road to go down.

Five is still 150% more than the two that completed Ultron for Hulkbuster.

Statistics that don't factor in the total numbers of the complete audience are meaningless spin. Saying it is a 150% increase is just a way to avoid saying you've gone for a solution that works for 0.01% of your audience to 0.025%. Ultimately, you've moved from being able to count your groups on one hand to... still being able to count your groups on one hand. Still a failure when considering the full 20,000.

So, official word says that 49 alliances won all three covers while 111 won two. That's more than 3,000 players with Cyclops covers. And that's not even counting alliances that won one cover. Is that still too low a number? Again I ask, what number would be "fair"according to you? There are over 20,000 alliances but how many of them are active? How many actually signed up for the event? How many have rosters that can actually sustain and make good use of a four star cover?

Dauthi

Omega Red wrote:

So, official word says that 49 alliances won all three covers while 111 won two. That's more than 3,000 players with Cyclops covers. And that's not even counting alliances that won one cover. Is that still too low a number? Again I ask, what number would be "fair"according to you? There are over 20,000 alliances but how many of them are active? How many actually signed up for the event? How many have rosters that can actually sustain and make good use of a four star cover?

IceIX wrote:

Slightly more alliances than we expected (111) made it to round 7 of Galactus, and 49 alliances met the final score target in round 8.

111 is the number of alliances who received one Cyclops.

Omega Red

Vhailorx wrote:

Omega red: rather than going through point by point, I will just give the highlight response:

1) we have no idea how many 4* covers went out the door in this event relative relative to normal pve events. And any guess we make are based on assumptions (10 brackets total for every pve? Who knows. . . )

2) did you read my parenthetical? I expressly admitted that the game costs money, which makes the digital goods price argument less clear. The fact remains that the marginal price of extra digital goods is basically zero (unlike tangible goods).

3) when businesses sell things on sale, they are trying to generate more business in the long run. It's not generosity, it's a calculated business choice made in the hope of long term benefit for the seller.

4) why are you equating expressing criticism with demanding free stuff? There is definitely some of the latter on this message board, but I really think everything I and pylgrim have said in this thread is the former and not the latter.

Digital goods have production costs and opportunity costs as well. They also are intelectual property with inherent value. Under your rationale, the itunes store should release back catalogs at even lower prices or even free, since the cost of maintaining and distributing them is virtually zero. Gimme my free Dark side of the moon!

I don't equate criticism with asking for free stuff. I have been very critical myself of this game but I'm also critical of players. This thread has the word "generosity" in its very title and makes use of the concept in its OP. Being generous is basically about giving something without ulterior interest. So, since the thread asks the devs to be more generous, I deduce that what it really means is: "give me more stuff, just because".

Omega Red

Dauthi wrote:

Omega Red wrote:

So, official word says that 49 alliances won all three covers while 111 won two. That's more than 3,000 players with Cyclops covers. And that's not even counting alliances that won one cover. Is that still too low a number? Again I ask, what number would be "fair"according to you? There are over 20,000 alliances but how many of them are active? How many actually signed up for the event? How many have rosters that can actually sustain and make good use of a four star cover?

IceIX wrote:

Slightly more alliances than we expected (111) made it to round 7 of Galactus, and 49 alliances met the final score target in round 8.

111 is the number of alliances who received one Cyclops.

True. I missread it and I stand corrected. So, slightly more than 3,000 players won at least one cover.

Ctenko

Omega Red wrote:

Digital goods have production costs and opportunity costs as well. They also are intellectual property with inherent value. Under your rationale, the itunes store should release back catalogs at even lower prices or even free, since the cost of maintaining and distributing them is virtually zero. Gimme my free Dark side of the moon!

I don't equate criticism with asking for free stuff. I have been very critical myself of this game but I'm also critical of players. This thread has the word "generosity" in its very title and makes use of the concept in its OP. Being generous is basically about giving something without ulterior interest. So, since the thread asks the devs to be more generous, I deduce that what it really means is: "give me more stuff, just because".

That's a broad and unfair assumption, when the title calls it a comparison by putting the vs between. It's about what players might feel compared to what devs might feel. So it's not about 'give me more'. It's about partially what we all are attempting, to discuss what feels fair. Obviously you're more for the business end compared to the consumer. Which is fair. However it seems that you're making a few unfair assertions. At least as I read them, I freely admit that I could be wrong here.

Also YES. A wholly digital copy that under the EULA is not considered owned as property by the consumer, should be sold at a lower rate than a physical copy of the same content. Arguing otherwise is idiocy. Sorry.

Omega Red wrote:

So, official word says that 49 alliances won all three covers while 111 won two. That's more than 3,000 players with Cyclops covers. And that's not even counting alliances that won one cover. Is that still too low a number? Again I ask, what number would be "fair"according to you? There are over 20,000 alliances but how many of them are active? How many actually signed up for the event? How many have rosters that can actually sustain and make good use of a four star cover?

How many rosters can support it is not the debate, and as for 3000 your math is a little wonky.

111 alliances is 2220 people with a cover. So lets say for argument, that not all alliances are full, but most are, and of them maybe 4/5 alliances should have had a decent shot. Which sounds about right to me, I think someone said there are close to 450,000 accounts with 260,000 independent log-ins? During one of those press releases.

So lets assume of 260,000 people we have 10,000 full alliances, and 60,000 guys (Almost a 1/4 of the players) just hanging about in one mans, and small things. And say of those 8000 should by virtue of scaling be capable of a real run into the event. Which would be supported by Ultron three numbers. So, of those 8000 1.4% of alliances can can get the first cover reward? Yeesh. I'd assume more since there isn't a competition between players. This is not about getting people to aggressively grind nodes and remove each other from contention to be in the top ten percent of a bracket. (PVE.) In this scenario You should look at alliances as competing for the PVE personal reward. Three covers. Something normally the top 10% of people (per bracket) should be able to do. While fighting, biting, clawing, and scratching. So In my mind, and I'll contradict myself a little, the Top 5% of Alliances should get all three rewards. (Because it requires the effort of twenty people putting all their time into it, at a higher level of difficulty.) So, for me the event should be that 400 ALLIANCES finish the entire event. Which is around the same number of covers to be given out, if it was run in any other event.

Omega Red

Ctenko wrote:

Omega Red wrote:

Digital goods have production costs and opportunity costs as well. They also are intellectual property with inherent value. Under your rationale, the itunes store should release back catalogs at even lower prices or even free, since the cost of maintaining and distributing them is virtually zero. Gimme my free Dark side of the moon!

I don't equate criticism with asking for free stuff. I have been very critical myself of this game but I'm also critical of players. This thread has the word "generosity" in its very title and makes use of the concept in its OP. Being generous is basically about giving something without ulterior interest. So, since the thread asks the devs to be more generous, I deduce that what it really means is: "give me more stuff, just because".

That's a broad and unfair assumption, when the title calls it a comparison by putting the vs between. It's about what players might feel compared to what devs might feel. So it's not about 'give me more'. It's about partially what we all are attempting, to discuss what feels fair. Obviously you're more for the business end compared to the consumer. Which is fair. However it seems that you're making a few unfair assertions. At least as I read them, I freely admit that I could be wrong here.

Also YES. A wholly digital copy that under the EULA is not considered owned as property by the consumer, should be sold at a lower rate than a physical copy of the same content. Arguing otherwise is idiocy. Sorry.

Omega Red wrote:

So, official word says that 49 alliances won all three covers while 111 won two. That's more than 3,000 players with Cyclops covers. And that's not even counting alliances that won one cover. Is that still too low a number? Again I ask, what number would be "fair"according to you? There are over 20,000 alliances but how many of them are active? How many actually signed up for the event? How many have rosters that can actually sustain and make good use of a four star cover?

How many rosters can support it is not the debate, and as for 3000 your math is a little wonky.

111 alliances is 2220 people with a cover. So lets say for argument, that not all alliances are full, but most are, and of them maybe 4/5 alliances should have had a decent shot. Which sounds about right to me, I think someone said there are close to 450,000 accounts with 260,000 independent log-ins? During one of those press releases.

So lets assume of 260,000 people we have 10,000 full alliances, and 60,000 guys (Almost a 1/4 of the players) just hanging about in one mans, and small things. And say of those 8000 should by virtue of scaling be capable of a real run into the event. Which would be supported by Ultron three numbers. So, of those 8000 1.4% of alliances can can get the first cover reward? Yeesh. I'd assume more since there isn't a competition between players. This is not about getting people to aggressively grind nodes and remove each other from contention to be in the top ten percent of a bracket. (PVE.) In this scenario You should look at alliances as competing for the PVE personal reward. Three covers. Something normally the top 10% of people (per bracket) should be able to do. While fighting, biting, clawing, and scratching. So In my mind, and I'll contradict myself a little, the Top 5% of Alliances should get all three rewards. (Because it requires the effort of twenty people putting all their time into it, at a higher level of difficulty.) So, for me the event should be that 400 ALLIANCES finish the entire event. Which is around the same number of covers to be given out, if it was run in any other event.

Google playstore says the game has been downloaded a million times. Imagine that player base! You cannot give out rewards based on that, you do it based on what is your actual pool of competitive players. Thousands of people download this game, play it once and never do it again. A vast majority play a couple of matches here and there to pass the time. Only a small minority from the total player base actually plays daily with the purpose of competing and progressing, that's the actual universe of players that should be used as reference when pondering reward distribution.

Sword user

I'm gonna jump in and just say that a game like Galactus feels more like work, and people want a fair 'wage' for their effort. If it feels like they aren't earning that wage, based upon increased costs (health packs, time, etc), they are going to feel cheated. Clearly the devs felt that the effort versus time was fair (maybe because each clear was a relatively short period of time, maybe because this event was so much more dependent on health packs, etc), and many many players did not.

This clearly has to be framed as generosity, because the devs are the holders of all the cards. Players can only choose not to play or not to pay.